neumann KM184 mic frequency response question

[mandobouy]

hey there,
i'm looking at the KM184 which a number of people have raved about in various threads. i've seem some comments elsewhere talking about hating the upper frequency rise, how some like the rise, how some just EQ it down. the response specs and comments seem to imply that it would be a good mic for mando.

however, the freq response plot shows it taking a dive starting around 175 Hz. they call it 20 - 20K Hz but its -12 dB at 20 Hz! the response dive isn't so much an issue with a mando but i would like to get a mike that i can also use on my old gibson archtops, and guitars get down to roughly 80Hz.

i currently have some AKG C391B mics with cardiod capsules, considering exchanging out for the 184. the 391's have a similar but less extended rise range, and they are pretty flat(w/o the cut engaged) down to about 50 Hz. these seem to get around the low freq coverage issue of the KM184. i'm wondering if i'm better off staying with what i've got or if the KM184 offers something better, or is terribly more sensitive or efficient, etc.

have any of you used the KM184 on acoustic guitars? how does it do on the low end and do you have to EQ the mic to get a decent low end on a guitar?

any suggestions or summaries of your KM184 experiences would be appreciated.
thanks, bruce

[almeriastrings]

The KM-184 (and the older KM-84) is one of the most popular mics in the studio world for acoustic guitar. I would not concentrate too much on response charts: instead, try to hear one. Then you'll know why.

[lukmanohnz]

I own a stereo matched pair of KM184s. They are the best mic investment I ever made - nothing I ever tried before, including high end large diaphragm condensers, captures acoustic guitar for me like the 184s. As the previous responder suggests, I think you would be well advised to audition one.

[pickerdd]

KM184's are very nice modern mics, but you might consider the original KM84's to the KM184 if you can find them and are interested in vintage mics. My personal preference are the KM86's I purchased several years ago. They are amazing mics. KM86's use 2 KM84 capsules (and additional electronics). KM84's have a very similar sound to KM86'sm but are less expensive. KM84's are more expensive than KM184's.

[Chunky But Funky]

I own a stereo matched pair of KM184s. They are the best mic investment I ever made - nothing I ever tried before, including high end large diaphragm condensers, captures acoustic guitar for me like the 184s. As the previous responder suggests, I think you would be well advised to audition one.

I have a pair of Neumann KM 184's as well. I agree with you to a point. They are useful on a variety of sources including acoustic intruments as well as drum overheads. However, have you tried a Royer 121 on an acoustic guitar or mando? I nearly quit using my condensors when I got the 121's. Ribbons are a little more "finicky" in a live setting, which I don't think the OP addresses. The figure 8 pattern can be a challenge especially with monitors if you don't plan carefully. Live, I still grab the AT Pro 37's. You can get about 6 of those for the price of the Neumann KM184's! Just something else to think about...and spend more money on!

[foldedpath]

have any of you used the KM184 on acoustic guitars? how does it do on the low end and do you have to EQ the mic to get a decent low end on a guitar?

I often use KM184's on acoustic guitar, and I've never had to use EQ to lift the bass. They do very well at capturing lower frequencies, even on things like upright bass or low-pitched hand drums. The only low EQ I use on acoustic guitar is usually a highpass at around 70-80 Hz to cut any rumble or other environmental noises, and then sometimes a shallow notch in the guitar's airmass resonance at around 100-110 Hz if it's something boomy like a dreadnought.

Note: mic placement has a lot to do with this. I almost always record acoustic guitar with a spaced pair, one mic pointing roughly at the neck/body join, and the other mic aimed from the lower end of the guitar at the area behind the bridge. That's the mic that gets most of the bass capture in a stereo mix. If you only record from the neck area, then I suppose the mics could sound thin, but not when recorded this way. If I was doing a point-source stereo recording, I'd probably use a stereo ribbon mic or my stereo large diaphragm mic in Blumelien or X/Y (depending on the room), to get a little more depth in the lower end.

Depending on the source and intention for the recording, there are other mics I might use on on acoustic guitar, like tube small condenser Mojave MA-100's, or sometimes (but not often) a pair of ribbon R-121's. Usually that's when it's a fairly harsh and metallic source, like someone using metal fingerpicks, or if it's slide guitar and I want to minimize the mechanical noise from the slide. It just depends on the source.

[lukmanohnz]

I have a pair of Neumann KM 184's as well. I agree with you to a point. They are useful on a variety of sources including acoustic intruments as well as drum overheads. However, have you tried a Royer 121 on an acoustic guitar or mando? I nearly quit using my condensors when I got the 121's. Ribbons are a little more "finicky" in a live setting, which I don't think the OP addresses. The figure 8 pattern can be a challenge especially with monitors if you don't plan carefully. Live, I still grab the AT Pro 37's. You can get about 6 of those for the price of the Neumann KM184's! Just something else to think about...and spend more money on!

A ribbon mic is the one type of mic I've never owned or tried. I have heard so many good things about them, but have shied away so far partly due to cost, and partly because my 184s gave me what I had been looking for in recorded acoustic guitar tone. I will definitely put the Royer 121 at the top of my list if the day comes when I could afford to add another mic to my studio gear. Thanks for the recommendation!

[Loudloar]

The KM184 is a great mike for stringed instruments. It does have a pronounced upper-mid bump, but that's what produces such great recordings of guitar, mando, fiddle. It has full range with a sparkling upper end. If you don't want that hi-freq bump check out the Neuman KMS-105. It's the same capsule in a package for vocal stage use, and has a fairly flat response. I'd even call it dark sounding; great for male vocals.

Steve

[Bruce Clausen]

You don't tell us what you find lacking in the 391. I use a 391 live and for home recording, and I like what I hear from it. The 184 I've had put in front of me in studios and on live gigs (on mandolin and guitar), but I wasn't in a position to compare the sound with the 391. Best is to rent the 184 and listen to the two mics side by side.

[mandobouy]

hi again. thanks for all the "experiential" and technical perspectives. this is an informative thread. good to see some comments back on the 391 too. i do like them, was just wondering about them in comparison to the vaunted 184 relative to acoustic recording purposes into a DAW.
didn't know you could rent a 184, will see what that offers if i can find that around here, or maybe someone in southern michigan can offer up a chance to do some comparisons.. the 391s are quite useful as they don't need full 48v phantom to be functional and i've run into (and have) some acoustic amps and heads that only provide around 15v phantom, which is enough to make the 391 go.
thanks again for all the info.

[desertnight]

The Km 184's really work well on everything mentioned. But do experiment with position a lot until you get what you want. I find with arch top guitars capturing the air vital to warming the tone a bit (with any mic) So in other words don't set up too close. The Royer 121 is an excellent choice for anything too (fiddle, mando, bass, guitar, banjo). Also to consider are the Rode NT-5's. Inexpensive and very reliable and with the (right preamp very effective). I've not seen anything mentioned about the preamps which is a whole can of worms itself. Clean or color? For color you can go dozens of ways single channel or dual channel. For single channel the Universal Audio 610 tube mic is hard to beat with any mic or source. For dual source the very affordable Vintech dual 72. For clean the True Systems P2 analog. (Then the prices go up from there)

Whatever you end up with stick with it and really get to know how to use it for best results. Good Luck.

[Pete Martin]

However, have you tried a Royer 121 on an acoustic guitar or mando? I nearly quit using my condensors when I got the 121's.

If you like the r121 , you should try the Royer SF series! I almost never use my R121 any more after getting the SF12.

I used to prefer the KM84 to the 184. Good ribbons made me sell both.

[oldwave]

Another great option is the Audio-Technica ATM 4051 or 4053 (hyper cardiod) I have used these for many years and compare favorable to KM84/184 or Shure SM 81's. The 4053 Hyper is great on guitars and the 4051 is my preferred on a mandolin. The 4053 Hypers are very useful live too because of the tight pattern.
Also Cascade Microphones makes inexpensive ribbons that sound pretty good especially if you upgrade the transformers, made in China but if the budget disallows the Royer etc.

[almeriastrings]

Personally, I would not wish to get rid of my KM-184's for a ribbon. They're totally different. Neither would I want a ribbon as my sole choice of mic (any ribbon). Both, my all means....

[lukmanohnz]

If you like the r121 , you should try the Royer SF series! I almost never use my R121 any more after getting the SF12.

I used to prefer the KM84 to the 184. Good ribbons made me sell both.

Another endorsement for Royer ribbon mics. Definitely on my list now. I checked Sweetwater - 'only' $2695 for the SF-12. Ouch - but no doubt worth the money. Are there any 'value' ribbon mic alternatives out there? At this price, my ribbon mic acquisition is a long time off...

[Spruce]

Another endorsement for Royer ribbon mics. Definitely on my list now. I checked Sweetwater - 'only' $2695 for the SF-12. Ouch - but no doubt worth the money.

Well, that price is for 2 microphones, i.e., a stereo mic...

Are there any 'value' ribbon mic alternatives out there? At this price, my ribbon mic acquisition is a long time off...

Yeah, lots....
Mostly Chinese, but ribbon technology is not all that difficult to replicate...
Not sure of what specific brands and models are working for folks, but I'm sure someone will chime in...

[oldwave]

Also Cascade Microphones makes inexpensive ribbons that sound pretty good especially if you upgrade the transformers, made in China but if the budget disallows the Royer etc.

[steve V. johnson]

A lot of the good folks here have endorsed the KM-184 on their experiences. and I've had some good fun with 'em but I've used 84's more than the new ones. Folks didn't have a lot of definitive frequency informations, so I have a couple of observations and questions about the frequencies you mention...

"i've seem some comments elsewhere talking about hating the upper frequency rise..."

Are there ANY condensor mics made these days that don't have a 4k "presence peak" built in? I always wonder if the executives
celebrate the day, whenever the hell it was, when they all agreed that from then on all condensor mics would have a Presence Peak.

"however, the freq response plot shows it taking a dive starting around 175 Hz. they call it 20 - 20K Hz but its -12 dB at 20 Hz!"

Foldedpath notes the regular use of a high-pass filter (for acoustic guitar) and I regularly do that as well, on almost all acoustic folk instruments, often a bit higher. So that raises, for me the questions...

How much dive does your graph show at 175Hz? 2db down, 5db down?

How much of your guitar do you think there is below that? How much of it do you miss hearing when you use the 184?

What's between ... say ... 80Hz & 20Hz that you miss hearing when using the 184?

I've gotten used to messing around with 40 & 60Hz ranges because of hiphop and club musics, but when I put up mics I don't really expect, nor want, that stuff coming thru. But I don't work with taikos nor marching band drums, nor synths playing thru subwoofers, so...

I don't mean to be critical, I'm just curious. Sometimes reading specs of one's tools can ruin an otherwise rich experience in the use of 'em...

Cheers,

stv

[mandomedic]

I've been using Audix SCX1 Super Hyper Cardioids for the past 4 years. Had the Newman 184's but considering the price and to my ear, the tone, I preferred the Audix. For live work I especially like the Audix because you can get a lot of gain from an instrument without compromising tone. Depending on the system and room I do very little EQ'ing to get the volume and tone I want.. I bought a couple of new cartridges for a pair so that I can have a cardioid pattern. For the studio and for mandolin taste testing, I really like them.

[lukmanohnz]

Still a bit pricey but far less than the Royer, has anyone used an AT 4081? Any opinions regarding how it compares to the Royer?

[Timothy S]

If you're looking for audio sample from high end mics, including the KM184's, I suggest checking out SoundPure's website. They're a high end pro audio dealer and tend to post video reviews of all sorts of microphones used in different settings on different instruments. Grab a good pair of headphones and take a listen. It's always hard subjectively talking about sound.

[mandobouy]

hi again,
i started this thread and its time to check in again.

based on the opinions and experience of the members of this wonderful forum (by far the best of the music forums i frequent), i pulled the trigger and got a pair of very clean, used KM184s. with a fine BRW mando, i did some reasonable A-B tests tonight btwn the KM184, the AKG c391, and a third brand, quality pencil condenser. since my question was about the 184 and 391, here are my 184/391 observations.

184 and 391 were "better" than the other one, which didn't suck either. the 391 has more functionality in that it has a switch for normal response, bass rolloff, or 10 dB pad. the 184 is noticably hotter than the 391 but just add a few dB to the 391 gain, no biggie. it seemed the upper mando end of the 391 has a slightly more "musical" quality than the 184. however, the 184 has a wonderful clarity and "natural-ness" across its range (mando in this test, old L-4 archtop will follow). the 184 low (mando) end seemed to capture a woodier tone. the clear 184 mando top end was very nice too, just a tad different (not worse) from the 391, and it had that nice clarity to it. overall, the 184 sound seemed to have the best definition of the 3. it will be good to have both mics. so, i'm a happy camper. i appreciate the shared collective wisdom that got me into camp.
thanks, bruce

[steve V. johnson]

Cheers, Bruce. I'm happy that you've made a choice with which you're happy.

stv