How do KSM141's compare to SM81's?

I like both... but yes, sometimes I like one better than the other on the same sources... but which one I like best depends on what day it is. However, IMO the SM81 is a little more accurate... but no more than what you'd expect from a SDC as appose to a LDC.
 
141 dual pattern small diaphragm condenser
81 unidirectional
141 a roll off pad, a three position filter, transformerless preamplifier circuitry for linearity across all frequencies
81 Condenser (electret bias)
 
xstatic said:
i thought the KSM141 was a small diaphragm condensor.
Oops... my mistake, I misread the question... for some dumb reason (and I don't know why), but I had KSM44 vs SM81 in mind when I posted the above reply... please disregard my above reply. :o
 
I can't speak for the KSM141, but my SM-81's have been excellent mics over the years... never had a problem with them technically, and they're very accurate IMHO. They're still pretty much a "fixture" SDC mic in many studios.
 
sile2001 said:
Don't forget the low cut.

Thats what I meant by roll off:D

I certainly don't mind sm81's, and have only been able to use the KSM 14x's a few times so far. Every time though I liked them much better. Sm81's are known for being "acceptable" but never really "pretty". The KSM 14x's seemed top articulate things a little better and seemed to have a more prominent, yet at the same time clearer top end to me. I wouldn't say the differences were night and day though. Basically, if I were going out to buy them today I would get the KSM's. If I already owned the sm81's I would just keep them though.
 
xstatic said:
Basically, if I were going out to buy them today I would get the KSM's. If I already owned the sm81's I would just keep them though.


Does that mean that you would perfer even the KSM109's over SM81's? The 109 doesn't have a low cut, but it does have a pad, and it costs about half as much as the 81's.
 
Probably. My console is chock full of EQ's and low cuts, so one on a mic would not be a necessity for me. Basically, sm81's just have a little bit of a harsh sound to them, but a little EQ takes care of it pretty well:) If I already owned 81's, I wouldn't even go out to buy another Shure sd condensor. If I didn't and those were my choices, I would probably go with the KSM just because of how they are built and my experience with whichever KSM SD cond I used before.
 
I'm digging up this thread as I just got a KSM141 and thought I'd share my impressions.

Essentially I agree with xstatic. The 141 has a nice top end. I always fancied myself a lover of flat-response microphones, so it hurts me to admit the 141 sounds better. I mainly use SDCs for string instruments, and on the following instruments, all from two feet away:

harp (29 string folk)
classical guitar
dulcimer
violin

I only preferred the 81 on harp, where it brought that rather quiet instrument forward, where the 141 left it distant and too crinkly. On classical guitar the 141 added a nice top. The 81 made the dulcimer sound like a little wooden box, which after all is what it sounds like, but the 141 lifted it to a higher plane.

I experimented quite a lot with violin. Using a placement towards the side of the violin, chest high, the 141 shone, retaining enough high end while still being balanced. The 81 suffered, yielding a fiddle tone but with odd resonances. I don't have an expensive violin, so maybe that is what it sounds like, but like the dulcimer, the 141 made it sound better than it does.

There are two other characteristics of the 141: it's much hotter than the 81, which I find helpful. At the same time it is less noisy, although the 81 is plenty quiet for my uses.

Second, in comparison, I didn't note the reknown "in your face" character in the 141. The 81 definitely has it, which helped on the harp, but the 141 always gave a better sense of space.

One minus is that you need some sort of tool to move the pad and rolloff switches. That's a pain, but I never use them, since I have those features on my pres.

I didn't make much use of the omni setting: the tone seemed about the same, but the rear sensitivity picked up a bit more room noise, as I didn't have my studio on full quiet mode. I will find it more useful for location recording.

In conclusion I'd say the 141 is a good step forward for not very much more money.
 
Back
Top