KM84 vs. KM184
Brad Bolton
in the sound compared to the 84, but could be a bit harsher than the 84 for
the same reason. I found 6 KM84's for sale, but would like to know what
others think of the KM184 before I purchased the KM84's. Price is not a
consideration between the two. Could not find a review on the 'Mix' or 'EQ'
magazine sites of the KM184, so I came to this group for help.
To anyone who has used both, I would appreciate your response.
Brad Bolton
tone...@my-deja.com
investment. The 84 is a no-lose acquisition--they are the first mic I
put up on an instrument when I'm not sure what to use...they are flat
and flattering all at the same time. I've only done a couple A-B tests
between the 84 and 184 (on acoustic guitar) and it seems to me the 184
was a bit more bass heavy. Either mic is a winner, but they don't make
the 84 anymore--boo hoo!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Scott Dorsey
Brad Bolton <bbo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I know the 184 uses a transformerless design, which could allow more 'air'
>in the sound compared to the 84, but could be a bit harsher than the 84 for
>the same reason. I found 6 KM84's for sale, but would like to know what
>others think of the KM184 before I purchased the KM84's. Price is not a
>consideration between the two. Could not find a review on the 'Mix' or 'EQ'
>magazine sites of the KM184, so I came to this group for help.
>
>To anyone who has used both, I would appreciate your response.
They sound different. The KM184 has a more detailed top end. But if
price isn't a consideration, why get either? Try the KM140, which is
cleaner than either one.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
David Satz
Brad Bolton <bbo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:82nk0p$2dm$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I know the 184 uses a transformerless design, which could allow more 'air'
> in the sound compared to the 84, but could be a bit harsher than the 84
for
> the same reason. I found 6 KM84's for sale, but would like to know what
> others think of the KM184 before I purchased the KM84's. Price is not a
> consideration between the two. Could not find a review on the 'Mix' or
'EQ'
> magazine sites of the KM184, so I came to this group for help.
>
> To anyone who has used both, I would appreciate your response.
I've used them both; they both have their uses.
The KM 184 uses the same capsule as the KM 84 did, but mounted
in such a way as to produce a 4 dB peak around 10 kHz. The
KM 184 has less internal noise and a higher maximum sound
pressure level than the KM 84. The KM 84 is about as close to
a perfectly neutral-sounding cardioid as you may ever find; it's
the KM 184 that distinctly sounds brighter than reality.
Comments about the sound quality of a transformerless versus
transformer-equipped microphone amplifier make little sense
outside the context of a specific preamplifier's input circuit
characteristics. Normally there should be very little difference,
except at or near the overload point of the microphone. But
with some preamps the very low source impedance of a
transformerless condenser microphone will cause a rise in
response at the highest audio frequencies. In some designs
there will even be a peak somewhere not too far above the
audio range, which can (in extreme cases) lead to parasitic
oscillation and increased distortion "downstream."
Bill Roberts
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> They sound different. The KM184 has a more detailed top end. But if
> price isn't a consideration, why get either? Try the KM140, which is
> cleaner than either one.
(Not a challenge, but a genuine question)
How can this be, technically? From Neumann's claims they
are the same except for the KM184 lacking a pad. Same
capsule, same circuitry, supposedly.
A puzzler for sure.
?
-- Bill
Scott Dorsey
I dunno. But if it's not the capsule and it's not the circuitry, there
are still plenty of other things that can cause differences, from the
shape of the tube to the capsule mounting.
Brad Bolton
Scott Dorsey <klu...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:82p6sh$1jp$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <3850196B...@grove.ufl.edu>,
> Bill Roberts <wrob...@grove.ufl.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >
> >> They sound different. The KM184 has a more detailed top end. But if
> >> price isn't a consideration, why get either? Try the KM140, which is
> >> cleaner than either one.
> >
I heard today from a guy who has used both that the KM184 is harsher on the
high end than the 84. He recommended a pair of AKG c3000B's instead of
either KM.
Sorry I misled you, I meant to say price was not a consideration for the 2
KM mics I was considering.
Thanks for your input, Brad
Scott Dorsey
>> >Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> >
>> >> They sound different. The KM184 has a more detailed top end. But if
>> >> price isn't a consideration, why get either? Try the KM140, which is
>> >> cleaner than either one.
>
>I heard today from a guy who has used both that the KM184 is harsher on the
>high end than the 84. He recommended a pair of AKG c3000B's instead of
>either KM.
Yes, that more detailed top end can turn into a harsher top end in a lot
of circumstances.
The C3000B is a totally different beast intended for totally different
applications and isn't really suitable for distant miking.
>Sorry I misled you, I meant to say price was not a consideration for the 2
>KM mics I was considering.
Well, try the KM140 anyway. It's not much more.
David Morgan (MAMS)
Brad Bolton wrote in message <82rmlc$734$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>> >Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> >
>> >> They sound different. The KM184 has a more detailed top end. But if
>> >> price isn't a consideration, why get either? Try the KM140, which is
>> >> cleaner than either one.
>> >
>I heard today from a guy who has used both that the KM184 is harsher on the
>high end than the 84. He recommended a pair of AKG c3000B's instead of
>either KM.
Ouch. I haven't had a set of 84's in several years, but have a couple of 184's now.
In most cases they smoke the 3000, IMHO. I'll agree that the 184 seems to tip
the top end a bit, but I could have forgotten the detail in the 84's. I only know
that the 184 is by no means an 84. I'd swap in an instant if memory serves
me well.
David Morgan (MAMS)
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, TX (972) 622-1972
___________________________________________
jebolt
brass and drums
Also there is a considerable difference in output level between older
KM 84's and the last generation made. The difference is about 6db. I
own 6 KM84's. My mics with serial # 55--- and higher have a nice hot
output and actually sound a little more open than the older ones.
I've seen the 184's and I think they are really a scaled down version (
no interchangable capsules etc.) I would recommend buying the real
84's or if you can afford it buy some KM140's. The 140's are all
around the best choice between the three.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Brad Bolton
> In article <3850196B...@grove.ufl.edu>,
> Bill Roberts <wrob...@grove.ufl.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> They sound different. The KM184 has a more detailed top end. But if
> >> price isn't a consideration, why get either? Try the KM140, which is
> >> cleaner than either one.
> >
Sorry to be a pain, but do you mean the KMS 140? That's the closest
nomenclature I can find in currently available Neumann mics. And it is a
vocal mic, which I assume would not be teh best at distant miking.
Thanks, Brad Bolton
Scott Dorsey
No. Different creature. Look at the KM100 with a cardioid capsule;
the combination is called a KM 140.
David Satz
Brad Bolton <bbo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > >Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > >
> > >> They sound different. The KM184 has a more detailed top end. But if
> > >> price isn't a consideration, why get either? Try the KM140, which is
> > >> cleaner than either one.
>
> Sorry to be a pain, but do you mean the KMS 140? That's the closest
> nomenclature I can find in currently available Neumann mics. And it is a
> vocal mic, which I assume would not be teh best at distant miking.
No, the designation KM 140 is correct; it is the cardioid member
of the KM 100 series. However, it is equivalent to the KM 184 in
circuitry and capsule, differing only in the fact that the capsule
head is interchangeable with other KM 100 series capsule heads
while on the KM 184 it is not. I'm surprised to see people here
(or anywhere else) who maintain that the two microphones
sound significantly different. I think you should form your own
opinion about that. But the main thing is, KM 140 is a real,
current Neumann model.
ScotFraser
In article <09920fb9...@usw-ex0107-050.remarq.com>, jebolt wrote:
<<I would recommend buying the real
84's or if you can afford it buy some KM140's. The 140's are all
around the best choice between the three.>>
I second the KM140 recommendation. It's one of the best all around mics on the
planet. They're great on absolutely everything I've put them in front of.
Scott Fraser
ScotFraser
In article <82rmlc$734$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Brad wrote:
<<I heard today from a guy who has used both that the KM184 is harsher on the
high end than the 84. He recommended a pair of AKG c3000B's instead of
either KM.>>
I'd say the C3000 recommendation kinda nullifies anything the guy had to say
about the Neumanns.
Scott Fraser
Bill Roberts
ScotFraser wrote:
> "Brad wrote:
>
> <<I heard today from a guy who has used both that the KM184 is harsher on the
> high end than the 84. He recommended a pair of AKG c3000B's instead of
> either KM.>>
> I'd say the C3000 recommendation kinda nullifies anything the guy had to say
> about the Neumanns.
I was thinking about maybe giving him the benefit of
the doubt and allowing for the possibility that a miracle
had rendered the 3000B's a much better mic than the 3000's
but then I came to my senses.
BTW, has anyone compared the 3000B to the 3000?
And on the cheapie-AKG topic: I think there may be something
screwy with the $139 AKG C5900's being blown out by AMS.
I ordered one back when that deal first came out, and had
to return it: it was really not very good, and definitely
not as good as the C5900 I had previously owned.
However AMS does have a good return policy so that was no
problem. Took a Beta 57a in return: a much better mic.
-- Bill
Joe Schottman
> They sound different. The KM184 has a more detailed top end. But if
> price isn't a consideration, why get either? Try the KM140, which is
> cleaner than either one.
I'd also point out that with the KM140, you can add different capsules, making
it a little more versitile than the 184. And both the 130 and 140 do really
nicely sometimes for vocals, if you avoid popping.
If you pass on the 84s, you might post the source for the 6 you found here -
some people may be looking for them.
Joe Schottman
hank alrich
> In article <82rmlc$734$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Brad wrote:
>
> <<I heard today from a guy who has used both that the KM184 is harsher on the
> high end than the 84. He recommended a pair of AKG c3000B's instead of
> either KM.>>
>
> I'd say the C3000 recommendation kinda nullifies anything the guy had to say
> about the Neumanns.
I second that emotion. One of ours neighbors was almost killed by his
dog for miking a piccolo with a C3000! You gotta be careful with this
advice stuff. Lives could be at stake.
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
Druhms
>some people may be looking for them.
>
>Joe Schottman
I'm looking!
Fill me in brother.
JJ
dru...@aol.com
ScotFraser
In article <3854...@news1.vtacs.com>, Joe wrote:
<<I'd also point out that with the KM140, you can add different capsules,
making
it a little more versitile than the 184. >>
Unfortunately the capsules cost almost as much as the whole mic, so
cost/benefit-wise I think you're better off getting the whole kit rather than
one KM100 & a bunch of capsules.
Scott Fraser
Rob Reedijk
: No, the designation KM 140 is correct; it is the cardioid member
: of the KM 100 series. However, it is equivalent to the KM 184 in
: circuitry and capsule, differing only in the fact that the capsule
: head is interchangeable with other KM 100 series capsule heads
: while on the KM 184 it is not. I'm surprised to see people here
: (or anywhere else) who maintain that the two microphones
: sound significantly different. I think you should form your own
: opinion about that. But the main thing is, KM 140 is a real,
: current Neumann model.
The interesting thing is that often people will say that they prefer the
140 over the 184. I would expect the 184 to be the better one since
it doesn't have the two extra sets of contacts in the signal chain
that the 140 has from having the detachable capsule and the -10 dB pad.
I am sure that there is a (un)reasonable explanation for this. Let's hope
it comes from Mr. Josephson.
Rob R.
Ici Radio Canada.
Mihartkopf
>are the same except for the KM184 lacking a pad. Same
>capsule, same circuitry, supposedly.
>
>
The Neumann people should learn their products better. The color of the Neumann
logo tells what circuitry is in the mic: black=tube,
purple=solid state fet-70 (Ton-ader powering) or solid state fet-80 (Phantom
powering), both with transformers,
red=fet-100 circuitry, phantom power, transformerless.
Find the specs in my microphone database on
http://members.aol.com/mihartkopf
Michael
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
data of many many many microphones at
http://members.aol.com/mihartkopf/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mihartkopf
>high end than the 84.
The rated frequency range reaches for the 84 up to 16 kHz, for the 184 up to
20 kHz.
Mihartkopf
>nomenclature I can find in currently available Neumann mics.
But the nomenclature is ok. Let's learn German:
KM=Kleinmembranmikrofon (Small diaphragm microphone)
KMS=Kleinmembranmikrofon für Solisten (... for soloists)
U=Universalmikrofon
M=Mikrofon, allgemein ( ... general)
Find more infos at http://members.aol.com/mihartkopf
Michael
Bill Roberts
Mihartkopf wrote:
>
> >How can this be, technically? From Neumann's claims they
> >are the same except for the KM184 lacking a pad. Same
> >capsule, same circuitry, supposedly.
> The Neumann people should learn their products better. The color of the Neumann
> logo tells what circuitry is in the mic: black=tube,
> purple=solid state fet-70 (Ton-ader powering) or solid state fet-80 (Phantom
> powering), both with transformers,
> red=fet-100 circuitry, phantom power, transformerless.
>
> Find the specs in my microphone database on
> http://members.aol.com/mihartkopf
Nice website! Thanks!
However, the above quote, I am pretty sure, is not
in reference to the subject header, but in reference
to KM140 vs KM184. Here there is some mystery as to
why the KM140 should sound better, and Mr Winkler has
not elucidated the matter... (hint, hint :)
-- Bill
Karl Winkler
I can assure you that we aren't claiming that the KM 84 and KM 184 are
the same except for the pad switch. And as to whether or not we, at
Neumann, should learn our products better, we do try.
Here's the lineage of this capsule/circuit combination:
First, there was the KM 64, introduced in 1964, which was a tube mic
with the KK64 capsule. This same capsule was then used in the KM 84,
two years later, which was the first phantom 48 V powered microphone,
and one of the earliest FET mics. Obviously, the KM 84 is one of
Neumann's most famous mics, and was made by the 10s of thousands
between 1966 and 1988. As indicated by the purple logo, it was a FET
mic with a transformer-coupled output.
In 1988, Neumann introduced the KM 100 series, which was intended to
replace the KM 80 series, and which incorporated several technical
changes. The red logo indicates that the KM 100 is a FET microphone
with a transformerless output. The big thing, though, with this series
of modular mics, is that the FET is in the CAPSULE and not in the body
of the mic. This is where the name "AK" comes from in the capsule
nominclature of this series; i.e. AK 30 for omni, AK 40 for cardioid.
Thus, the KM 140 is the cardioid mic from the KM 100 series, and is the
direct descendant of the KM 84. By including the active circuitry in
the capsule, now the capsule and the body (powering unit) can be
separated by long (up to 1000 meters), thin wire without losses. Today,
the KM 100 series is the only modular mic series with active capsules.
This AK 40 capsule was re-tuned just slightly from the original KK64/84
in that a bump in the upper mids (approximately +4 dB at 9 kHz) was
added. This was at the request of many engineers' comments prior to the
development of this series: they had asked for a brigher version of the
older KM 84. By going with a transformerless output circuit (together
with the FET in the capsule), and a DC-DC converter in the powering
circuit (in the body of the mic) the self noise, output level and
maximum SPL specifications were all improved over the older '84.
Certainly, the "brighter" characteristic of the KM 140 vs.
the "original" sound of the KM 84 is some matter of taste in regards to
which is chosen for what purpose. I have heard from countless
proponents for either version.
But, modularity = expense, and engineers and musicians with project or
home studios could not often afford the KM 140. Thus, the KM 184 was
born. This time, the same KK40 capsule was used from the KM 140, and
the same FET, transformerless circuit. The specs are the same, as is
the performance. The KM 184 does, however, lack a pad switch, as was
done to reduce manufacturing costs. But since the Neumann pad circuit
design is not directly in the signal path (the DC bias is reduced to
the capsule when the pad is "in"), there is no difference, or
improvement, either way.
I have heard claims that either mic (KM 184 or KM 140) is better, but I
have yet to hear any differences myself. And they measure the same in
all parameters. However, this is not to say that some people don't
indeed hear differences, and due to the different physical construction
required for each, perhaps the resulting signals might show this in
some way.
Respectfully,
--
Karl Winkler
Neumann/USA
860-434-5220
http://www.neumannusa.com
Rick Krizman
Karl Winkler wrote:
>
> >
>
> I can assure you that we aren't claiming that the KM 84 and KM 184 are
> the same except for the pad switch. And as to whether or not we, at
> Neumann, should learn our products better, we do try.
>
> Here's the lineage of this capsule/circuit combination: etc.
Karl,
Thanks for the detailed enlightenment. But I'm curious, since there is a
difference in sound and many seem to prefer the KM-84, why did you stop
production of this?
Cheers,
Rick Krizman
KrizManic Music
Stephen Paul
The 64 was a nuvistor (the 7586) equipped tube mike, and was the first of the
so-called 'inexpensive' capsules which Georg Neumann came up with...
The backplate has milled grooves (a lot faster to make and a lot cheaper than drilling
holes!<g>) and the diaphragm is glued to a land area of about a quarter mm on the back
of the hexagonal patterened honeycomb quasi-high-pass acoustic filter you can see
under the screen. This is then assembled with a spanner ring and a gold plated pin
screwed into the aluminum backplate final rear delay assembly.
The spacer for the diaphragm is a grey plastic ring into which the aluminum backplate
is pressed.
IMO the 64 or 84 transformer coupled mikes have always sounded better to me than any
of the transformerless stuff, but that's just an opinion. At mike levels, you are
always better off sonically with transformers for a number of reasons, (transient
stuff notwithstanding) and also IMO transformerless circuitry is better left in the
line level areas.
In general however, though the mikes are (or were) remarkably flat, they have a
transparency which to me borders on insubstantiality which renders them good for
fairly limited use in many cases, again, just an opinion.
Overall, the 64-84s were real jewelry inside, something which to me is an important
thing missing from all of todays plug-in instant board microphones of any marque. But
again, that is just my feeling, something which most of you may never see, because
this is internal stuff, and has to do with the hand-built beauty of things like the
uniquely Geman pad switch and contacts etc. These can also admittedly be maintenance
heavy areas, but they were lovely to behold, and look a lot more like little watchlike
sculptures of electronic and mechanical parts than the stone cold circuit boards of
today's hybrid etc. techno anti-triumphs!<g>
That Little Old Watchmaker,
Me
SP
"The Quest for Truth is never lost... only sued or hounded out of existence..."
-SP
Stephen Paul
Actually, KM stands for simply Kleine Mikrophon or small microphone...
Stephen Paul
> >Sorry to be a pain, but do you mean the KMS 140? That's the closest
> >nomenclature I can find in currently available Neumann mics.
>
> But the nomenclature is ok. Let's learn German:
> KM=Kleinmembranmikrofon (Small diaphragm microphone)
> KMS=Kleinmembranmikrofon für Solisten (... for soloists)
> U=Universalmikrofon
> M=Mikrofon, allgemein ( ... general)
>
> Find more infos at http://members.aol.com/mihartkopf
>
> Michael
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> data of many many many microphones at
> http://members.aol.com/mihartkopf/
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
By the way, is it Klein or Kleine? And forgive if I stand corrected but I never got
any word from Neumann in the past 30 years that 'membran' was in the nomenclature...
Always willing to learn,
SP
"The Quest for Truth is never lost... only sued or hounded out of existence..."
-SP
PS BTW the number on the KMs used to tell you the year of issue. This was also true of
the 'M' and 'U' series up to the 67... i.e. the KM53 was issued in '53 etc.
Stephen Paul
> >How can this be, technically? From Neumann's claims they
> >are the same except for the KM184 lacking a pad. Same
> >capsule, same circuitry, supposedly.
> >
> >
>
> The Neumann people should learn their products better. The color of the Neumann
> logo tells what circuitry is in the mic: black=tube,
> purple=solid state fet-70 (Ton-ader powering) or solid state fet-80 (Phantom
> powering), both with transformers,
> red=fet-100 circuitry, phantom power, transformerless.
>
> Find the specs in my microphone database on
> http://members.aol.com/mihartkopf
>
> Michael
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> data of many many many microphones at
> http://members.aol.com/mihartkopf/
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For those who want to know Ton Ader powering was called AB powering, a setup
championed by Sennheiser in the '70s and was the forerunner to phantom.
Steve Higdon
>PS BTW the number on the KMs used to tell you the year of issue. This was
>also true of
>the 'M' and 'U' series up to the 67... i.e. the KM53 was issued in '53 etc.
How does the M582 fit into this scheme?
Steve Higdon
Stephen Paul
It don't... this scheme only applied to mikes made by the Neumann Berlin factory in
the Charlottenstrasse...
--
David Satz
> By the way, is it Klein or Kleine?
The term "Kleinmikrophon" is a single word--a compound noun of the type
for which German is famous ("Schadenfreude," "Weltschmerz" etc.), except
that its first element is an adjective rather than a noun. But no adjective
endings (-e, -er, -es, -en, -em, etc.) are used in the middle of such
compounds.
A parallel in English usage: A cassette recorder presumably will record
more
than one cassette in its useful lifetime, but we don't call it a "cassettes
recorder."
The principle in German is rather similar. If the words were used
separately,
as in a normal sentence, _then_ an adjective ending might be needed: "Er
brachte mir ein kleines Mikrophon." ("Mikrophon" has neuter gender.)
> And forgive if I stand corrected but I never got any word from Neumann
> in the past 30 years that 'membran' was in the nomenclature...
You are quite right; "Membran" has never, to my knowledge, been part of
this term. That is simply an error on Michael H.'s part as far as I can
see.
Both Neumann's current German-language literature and all the older
German-language material I have (going back to the 1960s) uses this word
without "Membran" in it anywhere.
Best regards,
David Satz
Stephen Paul
Thanks for clearing that up for me David... appreciate it.
bbar...@iamerica.net
capsule but it used the AC701K tube.
Bruce Barielle
On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 13:26:46 -0800, Stephen Paul <sp...@primenet.com>
wrote:
Stephen Paul
Mike Rivers
> IMO the 64 or 84 transformer coupled mikes have always sounded better to me
> than any
> of the transformerless stuff, but that's just an opinion. At mike levels, you
> are
> always better off sonically with transformers for a number of reasons,
> (transient
> stuff notwithstanding) and also IMO transformerless circuitry is better left in
> the
> line level areas.
Y'know, I think Stephen might be on to something here. Transformers
provide noise-free gain, but the more energy you pump into them, the
harder it is to make them linear. Mic levels obviously are well below
the "problem" threshold, so it's not hard to make a good transformer
that fits into a mic.
It's also possible, with good design (and not everyone does it good) to
make transformerless interfaces that work well at high levels and only
start to exhibit distortion way down into where we expect a reasonable
noise floor to be. The important point is that just taking out a
transformer doesn't make for a good transformerless interface. When it
comes to what you have to stuff inside a reasonably-sized mic case, a
transformer is the more practical solution.
------------
I'm really (Mike Rivers) mri...@d-and-d.com
David Josephson
>> IMO the 64 or 84 transformer coupled mikes have always sounded better to me
>> than any
>> of the transformerless stuff, but that's just an opinion. At mike levels, you
>> are
>> always better off sonically with transformers for a number of reasons,
>> (transient
>> stuff notwithstanding) and also IMO transformerless circuitry is better left in
>> the
>> line level areas.
>Y'know, I think Stephen might be on to something here. Transformers
>provide noise-free gain, but the more energy you pump into them, the
>harder it is to make them linear. Mic levels obviously are well below
>the "problem" threshold, so it's not hard to make a good transformer
>that fits into a mic.
Hails of riotous laughter, Bruce!
>It's also possible, with good design (and not everyone does it good) to
>make transformerless interfaces that work well at high levels and only
>start to exhibit distortion way down into where we expect a reasonable
>noise floor to be. The important point is that just taking out a
>transformer doesn't make for a good transformerless interface. When it
>comes to what you have to stuff inside a reasonably-sized mic case, a
>transformer is the more practical solution.
Sorry Mike, it isn't that simple.
About the first one. I wanted to make a simple transformer-based mic
body. Note that the normal condenser mic capsule has an output around 10 mV
per Pascal, or a volt at 134 dB, which is a practical upper limit. You use
a mic transformer to step DOWN the voltage, so a lower impedance drives the
line. Turns ratios from 4:1 to 10:1 are common. I needed the mic to pass
full 134 dB SPL at 20 Hz with minimal droop and waveform distortion. I
asked the five top audio transformer makers (Jensen, Reichenbach/Cinemag,
Haufe, Lundahl and Sowter) for bids. Jensen, Reichenbach and Sowter
said that they couldn't make it so small (J. did send me an open frame
type that they make for another mic mfr, and it works okay but had
fairly high distortion at the lower frequencies. ). Lundahl finally
did make one using their metal-glass core than workd greay, but it sure is
wide.
Transformerless output stages are getting to be pretty good. The bipolars
need to be very quiet, though. The basic design of Schoeps works fine
(DC coupld, effectively).
o the
>------------
>I'm really (Mike Rivers) mri...@d-and-d.com
--
David Josephson / Josephson Engineering / San Jose CA / da...@josephson.com
Monte P McGuire
Mihartkopf <mihar...@aol.com> wrote:
>The color of the Neumann
>logo tells what circuitry is in the mic: black=tube,
>purple=solid state fet-70 (Ton-ader powering) or solid state fet-80 (Phantom
>powering), both with transformers,
>red=fet-100 circuitry, phantom power, transformerless.
This is true for recent Neumann mikes, but I do own a TLM170mt that
has a purple badge; by the current convention, it should have a red
badge, and the new ones do. I bought it brand new from Gotham around
'86 or '87, so I know the badge is original.
Just another data point...
Monte McGuire
mcg...@world.std.com
Stephen Paul
In addition, the FET 70 series had =Green= badges. (just thought I'd throw that
in...<g>...