Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Neumann KM-84 alternatives?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
November 3, 2004 5:38:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Does anyone have any suggestions for alternatives to the Neumann KM-84?

I am looking in the $400-$800 range. Would be primarily used for
close micing of acoustic intruments (guitar, mando, fiddle, etc).

I picked up a Marshall 603s to try out. It seems to have a hollowness to
it when you put it on a martin dread, lacks fullness.

Also heard mention of the Octava MC012. Have not tried one.

Any thoughts welcome. Thank you.

Best,

Chuck

More about : neumann alternatives

Anonymous
November 3, 2004 9:36:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

chuck <codonnell7@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Does anyone have any suggestions for alternatives to the Neumann KM-84?
>
>I am looking in the $400-$800 range. Would be primarily used for
>close micing of acoustic intruments (guitar, mando, fiddle, etc).

My first suggestions would be the Josephson Series Four, and the
Audio-Technica AT 4051 and 4053.

>I picked up a Marshall 603s to try out. It seems to have a hollowness to
>it when you put it on a martin dread, lacks fullness.

Well, what do you want for a mike that probably costs around ten dollars
to make? Did you try moving it more toward the sound hole?

>Also heard mention of the Octava MC012. Have not tried one.

It's a reasonably good cheapie, but it's not in the same league as the
KM-84. Then again, it does not cost much either.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 2:16:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

chuck wrote:

> Does anyone have any suggestions for alternatives to the Neumann KM-84?

Josephson Series 4 cardioid condensor. About $500 or less. Available
from selected, reputable dealers, including Mercenary Audio.

<http://www.mercenary.com&gt;

--
ha
Related resources
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 2:36:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

chuck wrote:

> Does anyone have any suggestions for alternatives to the Neumann KM-84?
>
> I am looking in the $400-$800 range. Would be primarily used for
> close micing of acoustic intruments (guitar, mando, fiddle, etc).
>
> I picked up a Marshall 603s to try out. It seems to have a hollowness to
> it when you put it on a martin dread, lacks fullness.
>
> Also heard mention of the Octava MC012. Have not tried one.
>
> Any thoughts welcome. Thank you.
>
> Best,
>
> Chuck

Check out the Crown CM700's and AT 4051's. Here's a link for the
Crowns. http://www.crownaudio.com/mic_web/index.htm

Jim
--
it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your
mouth and remove all doubt....
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 7:19:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< Does anyone have any suggestions for alternatives to the Neumann KM-84?
>>



The Neumann KM140, which is quieter, higher output, & has a more extended low
end. I still prefer the 84 for close miking in spite of the previous sentence,
though.

Scott Fraser
November 4, 2004 9:36:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message news:<cmbq1f$pvl$1@panix2.panix.com>...
> >I picked up a Marshall 603s to try out. It seems to have a hollowness to
> >it when you put it on a martin dread, lacks fullness.
>
> Well, what do you want for a mike that probably costs around ten dollars
> to make? Did you try moving it more toward the sound hole?
>

i didn't expect much, and i got what i paid for ;) 

yeah, i tried a lot of positions. it's just missing something.

thanks for the suggestions on the josephson.

chuck
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 9:44:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> << Does anyone have any suggestions for alternatives to the Neumann KM-84?

How about a used KM-84? They sometimes go on e-bay in your price range.

Having said that, I've seldom liked the KM-84 on dreadnoughts (other than
Gibsons); it tends to woof out too much. The MC-012 does that less, but
still does it. You might be able to get an AKG C414-XLS for that price, very
neutral, little woof-out, and lots of other applications. For a little more,
you can get a Gefell M930; my affection for this microphone is notorious,
but it really does work nicely on most guitars, banjos, mandos, etc..

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 10:15:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Fraser suggested:

> The Neumann KM140, which is quieter, higher output, & has a more
> extended low end. I still prefer the 84 for close miking in spite
> of the previous sentence, though.

For a budget-conscious buyer, the Neumann KM 184 would surely be
preferable to the KM 140. It has the same sound (including the rather
unfortunate peak around 9 kHz, ~2 dB greater than that of the KM 84).
But a KM 184 made in ca. 2002 or later is ~3 dB quieter than a KM 140,
while the list price of a KM 184 is the same as that of the KM 140's
"active capsule" alone.

The down side is that KM 180-series capsules aren't interchangeable
with others that would give other patterns (omni, supercardioid), and
the special accessories such as cables and goosenecks that go between
the capsule and amplifier body can't be used, since the KM 180-series
capsules don't contain the first (FET) stage of the amplifier as the
"active capsules" of the KM 100 series do.

--best regards
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 11:37:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

hmmm - i've owned almost all of those mics, and while i like the
AT4051s for some applications, they are certainly not a flat mic like
the km84. neither is the km140 nor the km184, nor the josephson. the
closest thing i have found to the km84 in terms of basic response in
your price range would be a used pair of AKG C480/ck61s - one of the
most underrated mics out there, IMHO. you can usually find used pairs
in the yard sale at the tapers section website for $850-900. i find
the C480s to be almost interchangeable with my DPA 4011s, and i
actually prefer them to the schoeps cmc64s i had (which were also very
nice). the C480 was my first choice for the violins and cellos i
recorded for the last RoseWynde CD. also, you can make mics like the
km140, km184, josephsons, etc, work prett well if you use them
off-axis. but a good mic with a flat response curve is really your
best bet. good luck.
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 12:07:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Used 84s puported to be in excellent condition typically
go on eBay for about $600. If that's what you really
want, buy one (or two) :) 




codonnell7@yahoo.com (chuck) wrote in message news:<c815adfc.0411031438.21bb9d69@posting.google.com>...
> Does anyone have any suggestions for alternatives to the Neumann KM-84?
>
> I am looking in the $400-$800 range. Would be primarily used for
> close micing of acoustic intruments (guitar, mando, fiddle, etc).
>
> I picked up a Marshall 603s to try out. It seems to have a hollowness to
> it when you put it on a martin dread, lacks fullness.
>
> Also heard mention of the Octava MC012. Have not tried one.
>
> Any thoughts welcome. Thank you.
>
> Best,
>
> Chuck
November 4, 2004 1:22:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote in message news:<Idkid.62802$OD2.14006@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > << Does anyone have any suggestions for alternatives to the Neumann KM-84?
>
> How about a used KM-84? They sometimes go on e-bay in your price range.
>
>

thanks. yes i've been watching eBay, but have not seen anything but a KM-84
box (without the mic!). i also have some concerns about buying used mics on
eBay. i guess, from my thinking, a mic is a sensitive piece of equipment,
and you have no idea where the mic is coming from and what kind of condition
it is in. and it is a lot of money to throw around looking for one that
hasn't been beat up too bad.

that's the reason for this post; given the popularity of the KM-84, is
there some reasonable alternative that you can but when you want without
a six month eBay 'watch', and comes with a warranty :) 

I had not considered a large diaphram like the Gefell M930. I did try a Studio
Projects C1, but it is not in the same class as a Gefell.

Thanks.

Chuck
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 1:44:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <e6a68193.0411040715.560fa140@posting.google.com>,
David Satz <DSatz@msn.com> wrote:
>Scott Fraser suggested:
>
>> The Neumann KM140, which is quieter, higher output, & has a more
>> extended low end. I still prefer the 84 for close miking in spite
>> of the previous sentence, though.
>
>For a budget-conscious buyer, the Neumann KM 184 would surely be
>preferable to the KM 140. It has the same sound (including the rather
>unfortunate peak around 9 kHz, ~2 dB greater than that of the KM 84).
>But a KM 184 made in ca. 2002 or later is ~3 dB quieter than a KM 140,
>while the list price of a KM 184 is the same as that of the KM 140's
>"active capsule" alone.

I swear that the sound isn't the same. I know the electronics are the
same and the capsules are the same, but the KM140 definitely sounds cleaner
on the top end to me.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 3:26:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

What's the big deal about the 9khz peak, if you use it in ortf stereo it
compensates for the off axis position, if not that's what the parametric eq
in you daw is for.... it's easier to eliminate a little 9khz than add it
when it's not there.

A question for Scott, which KM-140's are you referring to.... the original
21mm diameter units or the current 22mm version?

Rgds:
Eric


"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cmdion$b1h$1@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <e6a68193.0411040715.560fa140@posting.google.com>,
> David Satz <DSatz@msn.com> wrote:
> >Scott Fraser suggested:
> >
> >> The Neumann KM140, which is quieter, higher output, & has a more
> >> extended low end. I still prefer the 84 for close miking in spite
> >> of the previous sentence, though.
> >
> >For a budget-conscious buyer, the Neumann KM 184 would surely be
> >preferable to the KM 140. It has the same sound (including the rather
> >unfortunate peak around 9 kHz, ~2 dB greater than that of the KM 84).
> >But a KM 184 made in ca. 2002 or later is ~3 dB quieter than a KM 140,
> >while the list price of a KM 184 is the same as that of the KM 140's
> >"active capsule" alone.
>
> I swear that the sound isn't the same. I know the electronics are the
> same and the capsules are the same, but the KM140 definitely sounds
cleaner
> on the top end to me.
> --scott
>
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 4:35:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"chuck" <codonnell7@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c815adfc.0411031438.21bb9d69@posting.google.com...
> Does anyone have any suggestions for alternatives to the Neumann KM-84?
>
> I am looking in the $400-$800 range. Would be primarily used for
> close micing of acoustic intruments (guitar, mando, fiddle, etc).
>
> I picked up a Marshall 603s to try out. It seems to have a hollowness to
> it when you put it on a martin dread, lacks fullness.
>
> Also heard mention of the Octava MC012. Have not tried one.
>
> Any thoughts welcome. Thank you.
>
> Best,
>
> Chuck

I know that many don't like the Shure SM81, but I think it's a great little
mic. Very flat response, and if used with a little distance, can do an
admirable job.

Mike Putrino
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 4:42:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Eric K. Weber <eric-nospam@webermusic.com> wrote:
>
>A question for Scott, which KM-140's are you referring to.... the original
>21mm diameter units or the current 22mm version?

The original ones. I don't know if the current ones are any different.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 5:22:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <e340b423.0411040837.f436e68@posting.google.com>,
jnorman <jnorman34@comcast.net> wrote:
>hmmm - i've owned almost all of those mics, and while i like the
>AT4051s for some applications, they are certainly not a flat mic like
>the km84. neither is the km140 nor the km184, nor the josephson. the
>closest thing i have found to the km84 in terms of basic response in
>your price range would be a used pair of AKG C480/ck61s - one of the
>most underrated mics out there, IMHO.

The km84 is _anything_ but flat.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 5:43:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Michael Putrino <putrino@juno.com> wrote:
>
>I know that many don't like the Shure SM81, but I think it's a great little
>mic. Very flat response, and if used with a little distance, can do an
>admirable job.

The top end on the SM81 is a little harsh, but on some guitars this can be
an advantage and it can add a little bit of bite to the attack. It is
a handy thing to have in the kit. At some point I'll have an article in
Recording about smoothing out the top end on the SM81, though.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 5:43:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cme0pf$efi$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Michael Putrino <putrino@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >I know that many don't like the Shure SM81, but I think it's a great
little
> >mic. Very flat response, and if used with a little distance, can do an
> >admirable job.
>
> The top end on the SM81 is a little harsh, but on some guitars this can be
> an advantage and it can add a little bit of bite to the attack. It is
> a handy thing to have in the kit. At some point I'll have an article in
> Recording about smoothing out the top end on the SM81, though.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I must not hear what you hear. What I hear is a very flat mic response. If I
put it wher I like the sound to my ear, then I usually like the sound that
gets recorded and comes out of the speakers.

I once had a friend put two nice mics (one was an RE20; I can't remember the
other...a long time ago) on a Leslie speaker being driven by a Hammond M3.
He thought the recorded sound was great until I walked around the room,
found a great listening spot, at which point I put up a pair of SM81s...
Very natural...like being in the room with the player.

If you like what you hear with your ear, chances are the SM81 at that spot
will provide that sound to the recorder. Now, I'm certainly not saying that
it's the best mic for accoustic guitar or the like. That all depends on the
instrument, player, room, etc., etc....

Mike Putrino
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 6:00:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi Chuck:

Besides the Josephsons, AT4051 (a sleeper) and the others mentioned, used
AKG 451s are useful. If you get the 451B, the new re-release, you can't change
the capsule.

I use the old 451 with the CK1 capsule (cardioid) and when I need a different
flavor, use the BLUE Lollipop capsule which fits on the 451.

Best regards,
Audy O


codonnell7@yahoo.com (chuck) wrote in message news:<c815adfc.0411031438.21bb9d69@posting.google.com>...
> Does anyone have any suggestions for alternatives to the Neumann KM-84?
>
> I am looking in the $400-$800 range. Would be primarily used for
> close micing of acoustic intruments (guitar, mando, fiddle, etc).
>
> I picked up a Marshall 603s to try out. It seems to have a hollowness to
> it when you put it on a martin dread, lacks fullness.
>
> Also heard mention of the Octava MC012. Have not tried one.
>
> Any thoughts welcome. Thank you.
>
> Best,
>
> Chuck
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 6:28:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>"Michael Putrino" <putrino@juno.com> wrote:
>> "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>> >Michael Putrino <putrino@juno.com> wrote:
>> >I know that many don't like the Shure SM81, but I think it's a great little
>> >mic. Very flat response, and if used with a little distance, can do an
>> >admirable job.

>> The top end on the SM81 is a little harsh, but on some guitars this can be
>> an advantage and it can add a little bit of bite to the attack. It is
>> a handy thing to have in the kit. At some point I'll have an article in
>> Recording about smoothing out the top end on the SM81, though.
>> --scott

>I must not hear what you hear. What I hear is a very flat mic response. If I
>put it wher I like the sound to my ear, then I usually like the sound that
>gets recorded and comes out of the speakers.
>
>I once had a friend put two nice mics (one was an RE20; I can't remember the
>other...a long time ago) on a Leslie speaker being driven by a Hammond M3.
>He thought the recorded sound was great until I walked around the room,
>found a great listening spot, at which point I put up a pair of SM81s...
>Very natural...like being in the room with the player.
>
>If you like what you hear with your ear, chances are the SM81 at that spot
>will provide that sound to the recorder. Now, I'm certainly not saying that
>it's the best mic for accoustic guitar or the like. That all depends on the
>instrument, player, room, etc., etc....

Mike,

What you're saying is true of the older SM-81s; Shure made a change to them a
while back, and this is what Scott is referring to when he describes the top end
as "harsh".

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 7:30:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Harvey Gerst" <harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote in message
news:9g7lo0tiijtsh7255tljhpii3g4nkrie9b@4ax.com...
> >"Michael Putrino" <putrino@juno.com> wrote:
> >> "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> >> >Michael Putrino <putrino@juno.com> wrote:
> >> >I know that many don't like the Shure SM81, but I think it's a great
little
> >> >mic. Very flat response, and if used with a little distance, can do an
> >> >admirable job.
>
> >> The top end on the SM81 is a little harsh, but on some guitars this can
be
> >> an advantage and it can add a little bit of bite to the attack. It is
> >> a handy thing to have in the kit. At some point I'll have an article
in
> >> Recording about smoothing out the top end on the SM81, though.
> >> --scott
>
> >I must not hear what you hear. What I hear is a very flat mic response.
If I
> >put it wher I like the sound to my ear, then I usually like the sound
that
> >gets recorded and comes out of the speakers.
> >
> >I once had a friend put two nice mics (one was an RE20; I can't remember
the
> >other...a long time ago) on a Leslie speaker being driven by a Hammond
M3.
> >He thought the recorded sound was great until I walked around the room,
> >found a great listening spot, at which point I put up a pair of SM81s...
> >Very natural...like being in the room with the player.
> >
> >If you like what you hear with your ear, chances are the SM81 at that
spot
> >will provide that sound to the recorder. Now, I'm certainly not saying
that
> >it's the best mic for accoustic guitar or the like. That all depends on
the
> >instrument, player, room, etc., etc....
>
> Mike,
>
> What you're saying is true of the older SM-81s; Shure made a change to
them a
> while back, and this is what Scott is referring to when he describes the
top end
> as "harsh".
>
> Harvey Gerst
> Indian Trail Recording Studio
> http://www.ITRstudio.com/

--------------
Hi Harvey,

Goodness! Why would they change them? Cost-savings?

I baught mine in the mid 80s??? And then another pair in the early 90s...say
1991... They seem to be the same to me. Of course mine do not have the
current logo on the shell. They're all the old-style logo.

The frequency plot on the web site looks the same. Yea, I know...frequency
plots are not usually meaningful ;-)

Mike
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 7:52:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Harvey Gerst" <harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote in message
news:9g7lo0tiijtsh7255tljhpii3g4nkrie9b@4ax.com...

> What you're saying is true of the older SM-81s; Shure made a change to
them a
> while back, and this is what Scott is referring to when he describes the
top end
> as "harsh".

How long ago is "awhile back"? How would I know if mine are before or after
the change?

Hal Laurent
Baltimore
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 7:52:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Hal Laurent" <laurent@charm.net> wrote:

>
>"Harvey Gerst" <harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote:
>
>> What you're saying is true of the older SM-81s; Shure made a change to them a
>> while back, and this is what Scott is referring to when he describes the top end
>> as "harsh".

>How long ago is "awhile back"? How would I know if mine are before or after
>the change?

Hal,

I think it was early or mid 90's, but Scott would know that better than I do.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 9:13:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Harvey Gerst <hargerst@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>What you're saying is true of the older SM-81s; Shure made a change to them a
>while back, and this is what Scott is referring to when he describes the top end
>as "harsh".

When was this, Harvey? Part of my problem is that the electronics in the
SM-81 have changed dozens of times in the past 30 years of production. As
far as I know there have not been any serious sonic changes, but if there
are some I'd like to know so I can try and figure _which_ electronics change
was the issue.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 9:13:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Harvey Gerst <hargerst@airmail.net> wrote:
>>
>>What you're saying is true of the older SM-81s; Shure made a change to them a
>>while back, and this is what Scott is referring to when he describes the top end
>>as "harsh".

>When was this, Harvey? Part of my problem is that the electronics in the
>SM-81 have changed dozens of times in the past 30 years of production. As
>far as I know there have not been any serious sonic changes, but if there
>are some I'd like to know so I can try and figure _which_ electronics change
>was the issue.
>--scott

Geez, I thought I got that from you, Scott. IF you didn't tell me that, then it
was another person whose word I'd trust on the matter. I know I didn't make it
up. Maybe somebody from Shure can pop in here and clear this up?

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 4:03:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi David

I should stop by and return your pads ( please ,just not tonight)

I went and got a pair of KM 184 last week. . .Life has gotten a lot better
in the last week

Ed

"David Satz" <DSatz@msn.com> wrote in message
news:e6a68193.0411040715.560fa140@posting.google.com...
> Scott Fraser suggested:
>
> > The Neumann KM140, which is quieter, higher output, & has a more
> > extended low end. I still prefer the 84 for close miking in spite
> > of the previous sentence, though.
>
> For a budget-conscious buyer, the Neumann KM 184 would surely be
> preferable to the KM 140. It has the same sound (including the rather
> unfortunate peak around 9 kHz, ~2 dB greater than that of the KM 84).
> But a KM 184 made in ca. 2002 or later is ~3 dB quieter than a KM 140,
> while the list price of a KM 184 is the same as that of the KM 140's
> "active capsule" alone.
>
> The down side is that KM 180-series capsules aren't interchangeable
> with others that would give other patterns (omni, supercardioid), and
> the special accessories such as cables and goosenecks that go between
> the capsule and amplifier body can't be used, since the KM 180-series
> capsules don't contain the first (FET) stage of the amplifier as the
> "active capsules" of the KM 100 series do.
>
> --best regards
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 4:53:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>
> I should stop by and return your pads ( please ,just not tonight)
>
> I went and got a pair of KM 184 last week. . .Life has gotten a lot
better
> in the last week



opps ,the above message that I sent was not meant for rec.audio. . I'm
very sorry.


Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
http://www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com/
November 5, 2004 4:53:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Edward Bridge wrote:

>
>>
>> I should stop by and return your pads ( please ,just not tonight)
>>
>> I went and got a pair of KM 184 last week. . .Life has gotten a lot
> better
>> in the last week
>
>
>
> opps ,the above message that I sent was not meant for rec.audio. . I'm
> very sorry.

As long as you're talking about microphone pads, no biggie.

Happy to hear your life has gotten better. I'm guessing it has more to do
with the Neumanns than the election.
November 5, 2004 5:46:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

audy@audykimura.com (Audy) wrote in message news:<6e9dc628.0411041500.4296b088@posting.google.com>...
> Hi Chuck:
>
> Besides the Josephsons, AT4051 (a sleeper) and the others mentioned, used
> AKG 451s are useful. If you get the 451B, the new re-release, you can't change
> the capsule.
>
> I use the old 451 with the CK1 capsule (cardioid) and when I need a different
> flavor, use the BLUE Lollipop capsule which fits on the 451.
>
> Best regards,
> Audy O


I just recorded Ac Gtr with a C451/BLUE cap, and it was pretty nice.
Still pretty dang bright, but not cold like the CK1 can be. Tighter
low end too.


>
>
> codonnell7@yahoo.com (chuck) wrote in message news:<c815adfc.0411031438.21bb9d69@posting.google.com>...
> > Does anyone have any suggestions for alternatives to the Neumann KM-84?
> >
> > I am looking in the $400-$800 range. Would be primarily used for
> > close micing of acoustic intruments (guitar, mando, fiddle, etc).
> >
> > I picked up a Marshall 603s to try out. It seems to have a hollowness to
> > it when you put it on a martin dread, lacks fullness.
> >
> > Also heard mention of the Octava MC012. Have not tried one.
> >
> > Any thoughts welcome. Thank you.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Chuck
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 10:39:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Harvey Gerst <hargerst@airmail.net> wrote:
> >
> >What you're saying is true of the older SM-81s; Shure made a change to
them a
> >while back, and this is what Scott is referring to when he describes the
top end
> >as "harsh".

Really? I compared a couple of early-80s units with a mid-90s one (new logo)
and they sounded identical to me. Also had identical sensitivity levels,
within 0.2dB, which is the limit of what I can determine.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 10:54:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message
>
> The km84 is _anything_ but flat.
> --scott


sorry scott, but the response curve for the km84 on the neumann
website indicates that the 84 is pretty much dead flat from about
100hz to about 16khz. at any rate, what i meant was that the km84
does not display the same kind of high end lift that is seen with the
newer km140 and km184 (and so many other newer mics these days). i
always had trouble trying to eq out the harshness of the high end on
184s, and was never happy with tracking acoustic instruments until i
finally purchased some flatter mics like the schoeps, DPAs, and the
akg c480s.
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 11:18:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

For the price, the Oktava MC012 or MK012 is worth a try, you can toss it
out if it doesn't work. I just picked up a "broken" one from a dealer.
Most of the ones I have bought were ok, this turkey was incredible.
The spring from the center pin on the body, was not soldered to the
board, instead a solder bridge had been installed on the opposite side.
Then I found that the key way in the XLR was in the wrong position off
about 2 mm. Nothing I couldn't fix, but I'm finally aware of Oktavas
"quality control" issues. ;-)
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 3:32:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:

>> Harvey Gerst <hargerst@airmail.net> wrote:

>>What you're saying is true of the older SM-81s; Shure made a change to
>>them a while back, and this is what Scott is referring to when he
>>describes the top end as "harsh".

>Really? I compared a couple of early-80s units with a mid-90s one (new logo)
>and they sounded identical to me. Also had identical sensitivity levels,
>within 0.2dB, which is the limit of what I can determine.

Then I was given wrong information. My SM-81's are both old and lacking in
harshness. As Emily Litella would say, "Oh that's quite different; never mind."

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 4:35:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <53gno0phhgbp3a8e92cfa1upcjj4klebgd@4ax.com>,
Harvey Gerst <hargerst@airmail.net> wrote:
>>"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>> Harvey Gerst <hargerst@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>>>What you're saying is true of the older SM-81s; Shure made a change to
>>>them a while back, and this is what Scott is referring to when he
>>>describes the top end as "harsh".
>
>>Really? I compared a couple of early-80s units with a mid-90s one (new logo)
>>and they sounded identical to me. Also had identical sensitivity levels,
>>within 0.2dB, which is the limit of what I can determine.
>
>Then I was given wrong information. My SM-81's are both old and lacking in
>harshness. As Emily Litella would say, "Oh that's quite different; never mind."

You mind if I take a look at them, Harvey? It might be fun to compare them
with a new pair.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 4:35:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>Harvey Gerst <hargerst@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> Harvey Gerst <hargerst@airmail.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>What you're saying is true of the older SM-81s; Shure made a change to
>>>>them a while back, and this is what Scott is referring to when he
>>>>describes the top end as "harsh".

>>>Really? I compared a couple of early-80s units with a mid-90s one (new logo)
>>>and they sounded identical to me. Also had identical sensitivity levels,
>>>within 0.2dB, which is the limit of what I can determine.

>>Then I was given wrong information. My SM-81's are both old and lacking in
>>harshness. As Emily Litella would say, "Oh that's quite different; never mind."

>You mind if I take a look at them, Harvey? It might be fun to compare them
>with a new pair.

I'll get em out to you today or tomorrow.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 5:25:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"agent86" <maxwellsmart@control.gov> wrote in message
news:yNCid.269620$as2.175679@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> As long as you're talking about microphone pads, no biggie.
>
> Happy to hear your life has gotten better. I'm guessing it has more to do
> with the Neumanns than the election.

Yes Max , as you would say "brilliant deduction" on both accounts :>). ..

Cheif . ._not _
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 5:53:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

jnorman wrote:

> sorry scott, but the response curve for the km84 on the neumann
> website indicates that the 84 is pretty much dead flat from about
> 100hz to about 16khz. at any rate, what i meant was that the km84
> does not display the same kind of high end lift that is seen with the
> newer km140 and km184 (and so many other newer mics these days).

The curves which Neumann published for this capsule type in its early days
included a small but audibly significant high-end bump that fits within
the tolerance limits of the later "flat curves" which Neumann published
for its successor models up through the KM 84. The "flat curves" aren't
dishonest, but they aren't completely explicit, either. Such is life.

For that matter Neumann's K 89-based models also have audibly significant
"response features" that aren't shown in their published curves--but they
fit within the stated tolerances, so the curves can't be called dishonest.

You're quite right that the peak in the KM 140 and KM 184 is nearly 2 dB
higher. But I've seen a fair number of KM 84 frequency response curves
run in an anechoic chamber that I'm familiar with--I've seen curves of
many a microphone from there over a period of 30 years now--and the high
end of the KM 84 really doesn't measure flat on axis, I can assure you.
In a diffuse sound field it is even more distinctly bright sounding
because of its rising response at oblique angles of incidence.

--best regards
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 8:32:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

jnorman34@comcast.net (jnorman) wrote in message news:<e340b423.0411050754.314e6cf7@posting.google.com>...
> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message
> >
> > The km84 is _anything_ but flat.
> > --scott
>
>
> sorry scott, but the response curve for the km84 on the neumann
> website indicates that the 84 is pretty much dead flat from about
> 100hz to about 16khz. at any rate, what i meant was that the km84
> does not display the same kind of high end lift that is seen with the
> newer km140 and km184 (and so many other newer mics these days). i
> always had trouble trying to eq out the harshness of the high end on
> 184s, and was never happy with tracking acoustic instruments until i
> finally purchased some flatter mics like the schoeps, DPAs, and the
> akg c480s.

That's what I thought too (about the KM84) when I bought one to use
along with a Sennheiser MKH50 for some stereo recording of acousticc
instruments. I was suprised by the difference in voicing between the
two. If the KM84 is flat the MKH50 musst be dark, or, if the MKH50 is
flat the KM84 musst be 'bright'.
The KM84 is thinner and brighter sounding while the MKH50 sounds quite
a bit more natural, more like the original source. And lacking all
the hyped uber realism bright mikes seem to look for. The KM84 is not
really in this obtrusive class but has some of the character.
But in a way the KM84 and MKH50 complement each other.
I'm not a stereo rec purist. And of course I only record my own
transcendental noodling. :-)
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 12:29:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< I swear that the sound isn't the same. I know the electronics are the
same and the capsules are the same, but the KM140 definitely sounds cleaner
on the top end to me. >>



And many months ago Ben Maas & I said we'd get our respective 140s & 184s
together to put this question to bed for good, but I just haven't had time to
do anything but work all year.
Some one of these months.

Scott Fraser
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 11:15:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Michael Putrino" <putrino@juno.com> wrote:
>
> I must not hear what you hear. What I hear is a very flat mic
response. If I
> put it wher I like the sound to my ear, then I usually like the sound
that
> gets recorded and comes out of the speakers.



There's something wrong with the top end coming from your speakers! <g>

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 6:07:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Harvey Gerst" <harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote in message
news:tqino0luqi4tumlj00igeuqk5cekuadkr4@4ax.com...
> >kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >>Harvey Gerst <hargerst@airmail.net> wrote:
> >>>"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>>> Harvey Gerst <hargerst@airmail.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>What you're saying is true of the older SM-81s; Shure made a change to
> >>>>them a while back, and this is what Scott is referring to when he
> >>>>describes the top end as "harsh".
>
> >>>Really? I compared a couple of early-80s units with a mid-90s one (new
logo)
> >>>and they sounded identical to me. Also had identical sensitivity
levels,
> >>>within 0.2dB, which is the limit of what I can determine.
>
> >>Then I was given wrong information. My SM-81's are both old and lacking
in
> >>harshness. As Emily Litella would say, "Oh that's quite different;
never mind."
>
> >You mind if I take a look at them, Harvey? It might be fun to compare
them
> >with a new pair.
>
> I'll get em out to you today or tomorrow.
>
> Harvey Gerst
> Indian Trail Recording Studio
> http://www.ITRstudio.com/


I'd love to see the results of the comparison posted here....

Thanks,
Mike Putrino
December 25, 2012 1:36:37 PM

try the Audix SCX-1C. If you're using it on acoustic guitars, of any flavor, you'll be astounded at not only the sound, but the clean gain before feedback. I'll typically start with an 8 k shelf at about -4 to - 6 db (live) and rock out. e bay prices today were aroung 5 - 700.

Chuck said:
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Does anyone have any suggestions for alternatives to the Neumann KM-84?

I am looking in the $400-$800 range. Would be primarily used for
close micing of acoustic intruments (guitar, mando, fiddle, etc).

I picked up a Marshall 603s to try out. It seems to have a hollowness to
it when you put it on a martin dread, lacks fullness.

Also heard mention of the Octava MC012. Have not tried one.

Any thoughts welcome. Thank you.

Best,

Chuck

December 25, 2012 1:42:05 PM

btw, I've tried the Octava MC012 mics, and while their sound in an empty room is just okay, on a live stage, they tend to pick up the entire band and pulling the instrument the mic is in front of just seems to make a mess.....IMHO.
!