KM184 and C42

tkingen

tkingen

Djembes Rock
I'm kind of confused. Many people speak of the strident brightness of the Neumann KM184, usually preferring the old KM84 with it's slightly flatter frequency response. Then when it comes to the Josephson C42, you can find glowing reviews that are peppered with adjectives like airy, natural, and "best buy". Yet, when looking at the frequency charts of both mics, the C42 appears that it would be a little brighter than the KM184.
Unfortunately I've never had the opportunity to try a C42 but my interest has been piqued. Anyone had a chance to compare the two side by side?

Regards,
Terry
 
tkingen said:
I'm kind of confused. Many people speak of the strident brightness of the Neumann KM184, usually preferring the old KM84 with it's slightly flatter frequency response. Then when it comes to the Josephson C42, you can find glowing reviews that are peppered with adjectives like airy, natural, and "best buy". Yet, when looking at the frequency charts of both mics, the C42 appears that it would be a little brighter than the KM184.
Unfortunately I've never had the opportunity to try a C42 but my interest has been piqued. Anyone had a chance to compare the two side by side?

Regards,
Terry
Click to expand...

I did some extensive tests (well, extensive for me) of the KM184, the C42 and the Schoeps CMC6/MK4. At that time, I onwed the KM184s and was checking out the others to see if I should replace the 184s. Mind you, this was only for solo fingerstyle acoustic guitar, nothing else.

I ended up getting the Schoeps and selling the 184s. As far as sound goes, the Schoeps and 184s were close, like siblings. However, the Schoeps have quite an edge in the usual departments (accuracy, off-axis response, detail, smoothness, etc.). The C42s sounded rather different. Very pleasant. Scooped. That HF bump in the C42s is very noticible, and eqs very easily. Perhaps a bit more accurate than the 184s in the lower mids and mids. Low frequencies (75Hz to 200Hz) were about the same. The highs are definitely more present with the C42s when compared to the 184s, as comparing the frequency response graphs indicate.

I can see why folks would like the C42s, and like them alot. They just weren't what I wanted, which was something with a flat response with very high marks in all the other criteria.
 
I wish I had experience with the Schoeps, because they are badass mics by pretty much all accounts. I've heard the Josephsons, and they struck me as being a little like Studio Projects C-4's on steroids. I own the KM184's and would not describe their highs as strident. I would call it striking high-end detail. I think the KM184's and the Josephson's seem to be compareable, but different. The Schoeps rule. I do believe that the KM184 is often underated.-Richie
 
I agree with Richie about the KM184's often being underrated. I do find that the high end on those can be a little brittle, but on other sound sources that high end is just what was needed. Its just a question of using the right tool for the job. I also think though that Schoeps and Earthworks have really done well with only releasing incredible mics. They seem like companies that are less of a hit and miss than some others that have huge extensive mic lines. One of the big problems I see with the KM184's though is that they are so different than the KM84's. This isn't bad in and of itself, but many people compare them. Personally, I like the KM84's much better. They had a much warmer, smoother more natural sound. Yet, if you have a decent EQ, the KM84's take well to high frequency EQ'ing and you can still have that KM184 sound if you want it, but with richer more controlled lows. I don't feel like you can real make the KM184 quite sound like the older KM84 though. Hope that all made sense, I am still on my second cup of coffee this morning:D
 
I own the KM184, but unfortunately not the other mics mentioned here (I wish, though).

Yes, the 184 do have a rather bright high-end, but the overall crispyness and clearness is really awesome. Given the frequency plots, I could imagine that the hyped high-end of the Josephson might be a problem. I use the 184 on tenor sax most of the time (coz I play tenor sax), and compared to all other LDCs I've ever had a chance to audition (even much more expensive ones), the KM184 are the clear winners.
 
xstatic said:
I agree with Richie about the KM184's often being underrated. I do find that the high end on those can be a little brittle, but on other sound sources that high end is just what was needed. Its just a question of using the right tool for the job. I also think though that Schoeps and Earthworks have really done well with only releasing incredible mics. They seem like companies that are less of a hit and miss than some others that have huge extensive mic lines. One of the big problems I see with the KM184's though is that they are so different than the KM84's. This isn't bad in and of itself, but many people compare them. Personally, I like the KM84's much better. They had a much warmer, smoother more natural sound. Yet, if you have a decent EQ, the KM84's take well to high frequency EQ'ing and you can still have that KM184 sound if you want it, but with richer more controlled lows. I don't feel like you can real make the KM184 quite sound like the older KM84 though. Hope that all made sense, I am still on my second cup of coffee this morning:D
Click to expand...

With all of the mics available nowadays I wonder if anyone has tried to come up with a clone of the KM84. The 84 may be just the sound that I'm hunting for.
This weekend I used a KM184 and a Shure KSM44 to record acoustic guitar. It worked out nicely, but we were looking for a little extra smoothness in the top end. If an analogy of chocolate can be used, I was wanting some of the smoothness of milk chocolate on top of the sharper and more pointed flavor of dark chocolate.
So, maybe a more appropriate description would be detailed lows and mids, but with a detailed yet creamy high end.
Unfortunately, Schoeps and DPA are out of my budget right now. But there must be something else!!!!!!

Regards,
Terry
 
tkingen said:
With all of the mics available nowadays I wonder if anyone has tried to come up with a clone of the KM84. The 84 may be just the sound that I'm hunting for.
This weekend I used a KM184 and a Shure KSM44 to record acoustic guitar. It worked out nicely, but we were looking for a little extra smoothness in the top end. If an analogy of chocolate can be used, I was wanting some of the smoothness of milk chocolate on top of the sharper and more pointed flavor of dark chocolate.
So, maybe a more appropriate description would be detailed lows and mids, but with a detailed yet creamy high end.
Unfortunately, Schoeps and DPA are out of my budget right now. But there must be something else!!!!!!

Regards,
Terry
Click to expand...

The Microtech Gefell M300 fits that bill quite well in addition to having a pedigree overall sound. Mid-priced.
 
I'd be interested how the M300 compares to the KM184. I heard its closer to the original KM84, is that right??
 
Giganova said:
I'd be interested how the M300 compares to the KM184. I heard its closer to the original KM84, is that right??
Click to expand...

Yeah, you could call it close. But it's a different design, capsule etc. Gefell is the real "Neumann" in many ways, as many of their current mic products retain more of the classic Neumann designs.
 
sdelsolray said:
Yeah, you could call it close.
Click to expand...
I think I NEED a pair! :)
sdelsolray said:
But it's a different design, capsule etc. Gefell is the real "Neumann" in many ways, as many of their current mic products retain more of the classic Neumann designs.
Click to expand...
I know since I already have a Gefell mic (M930) and consider getting some others from them. Gefell makes fine mics.
 
Looking at the frequency response charts for both the M300 and KM184 - it looks like the rise in the M300 starts at about 2K instead of 5K for the KM184. Then, it drops quickly after 15K whereas the KM184 extends a little higher up towards 20k. It seems that the "lift" is favoring a slightly different set of frequencies. Could this be what makes the M300 a little creamier?

On another note, I spoke with a dealer that will send me a pair of M300's for a great price (1030.00 for a pair - he got them before Microtech Gefell raised their prices) but would have to charge a restock fee if I returned them. He felt that the M300 would be more of a lateral move from the KM184 as he thinks they sound so similar.
Now I'm really getting confused - anymore thoughts on this?

Terry
 
ive owned three pairs of km184s, pairs of gefell m300s, schoeps cmc64s, DPA 4011s, and akg c481s, as well as many less expensive SD mics, like rode nt5s, akg c391b's, etc. while the km184s are pretty good on acoustic guitar, that was about all i was able to use them for due to the high end lift, which can be very difficult to eq out if you dont want it. the gefell m300s were very similar in nature, though a tad smoother in the low mids. while i like the schoeps, they are rather boomy to my ears on many sources in the near field - they, however, excel as a main pair in the diffuse field for orchestral and chamber music - the little neumanns cannot touch them inthat application. the nt5s were overly bright on almost everything. the akg c391b's area pretty good entry level SD mic, and a favorite for many jazz clients. in my experience, the best, most natural, flattest, and most useable mics for almost any application are the DPA 4011s and the akg c480/ck61s - i love both those mics - no hype, and they can take eq wherever needed without problems (it is always easier to add abit of eq to a flat mic, than to take away something you dont like from a brighter mic). however, whenever i am in a decent room, it is invariably the DPA 4006s that get the job. hope this helps.
 
jnorman -- thats very interesting! But we should keep in mind that one DPA costs more than a pair of KM184, AKG C480/CK61 or Gefell M300.
 
jnorman said:
ive owned three pairs of km184s, pairs of gefell m300s, schoeps cmc64s, DPA 4011s, and akg c481s, as well as many less expensive SD mics, like rode nt5s, akg c391b's, etc. while the km184s are pretty good on acoustic guitar, that was about all i was able to use them for due to the high end lift, which can be very difficult to eq out if you dont want it. the gefell m300s were very similar in nature, though a tad smoother in the low mids. while i like the schoeps, they are rather boomy to my ears on many sources in the near field - they, however, excel as a main pair in the diffuse field for orchestral and chamber music - the little neumanns cannot touch them inthat application. the nt5s were overly bright on almost everything. the akg c391b's area pretty good entry level SD mic, and a favorite for many jazz clients. in my experience, the best, most natural, flattest, and most useable mics for almost any application are the DPA 4011s and the akg c480/ck61s - i love both those mics - no hype, and they can take eq wherever needed without problems (it is always easier to add abit of eq to a flat mic, than to take away something you dont like from a brighter mic). however, whenever i am in a decent room, it is invariably the DPA 4006s that get the job. hope this helps.
Click to expand...

I find that moving the Schoeps out (just about 6" or so) further from my guitar (when compared to the distance I sued for the 184 and other mics) yields a wonderful recording. Agreed, their proximity effect is more pronounced than many other SD mics, but a few inches equates things. A friend let me use his DPA pair (4011) for a week. Very very nice. A bit too clinical for my uses, but I would love to have a pair, along with a pair of Microtech Gefell M295s.
 
sdelsolray - you might want to consider at some point swapping the mk4 caps for the mk41s - much less proximity effect, just a better all around capsule, imo. and yes, the gefell 295s are really very good. they rank right up there with anything made.
 
Funny the more i use the KM184s the less i like them. I keep expecting them work excel in alot of things i try them on but come to find they dont work very well. Especially piano. At first i thought it was just the piano but i tried them on a different baby grand on a different project and found it to be the same results. The low muddy mids on it is very flabby in that area and doesnt EQ too well. I do like them on acoustic guitar though. High hat and ride is alright even though they are a little to crispy in my opinion. But i have not tried to C42 to compare.

Danny
 
jnorman said:
sdelsolray - you might want to consider at some point swapping the mk4 caps for the mk41s - much less proximity effect, just a better all around capsule, imo. and yes, the gefell 295s are really very good. they rank right up there with anything made.
Click to expand...

The guitars I record need about 2 feet or so to develop their composite sound, so I place the SDs out about 26" to 30". From this distance the MK4s exhibit some proximity effect, but not very much. I would like to add a pair of MK41 capsules at some point, as I particularly like their off axis response better than the MK4s. It'll be a while though. First on my list is a pair of the Geffel M295s.
 
danny - the c42s will not be much different from the km184s. pick up a pair of akg c480/ck61s - surely the most under-rated mic out there (though they are pretty much the most popular mics among the taper crowd) - you can usually find a good used pair for around $850-900 - no other mics in my experience can get anywhere near the 481s for less than twice that price. while i have many wonderful mics at my disposal, i use the akg's on nearly every project i do - they are excellent on strings, woodwinds, horns, guitars, hell, everything... they sit right next to my DPAs in my main mic case, and are probably my favorite spot mics. btw, i dont even have any LD mics any more - sold em all, especially after hearing the DPA 4011s and akg c481s on vocals - wowee. heck, my AT 4051s are better vocal mics than the rode NTKs i had. i never knew that til i tried some really good SD mics on vocals. i have just gotten to the point where i dont like mics to have any special "character" - i want them neutral, natural and completely transparent - just give me a clean track that sounds like the source, and i can do anything i need to after that. that said, i have not ever used telefunken ela-m251s or vintage u47s on vocals, though from friends who have both those mics, it still seems that they work on some vocals and dont work on others.
 
jnorman - thats interesting. i will look into c480s since i decided to ditch the KM184s the other day. All i have now in small diaphragm now is MXL 603s which i was most of the time preferring to the KM184s except for maybe high hats and some acoustic guitars. I need to pick up a pair of Oktavas too.

Im more of a large diaphragm person myself. I mainly because i dont find as much use in my small diaphragms but maybe its because i havnt found smalls that really accell to what i want them for. If the MXL603 doesnt cover it the AT4033s or AT4050 will usually get me what im looking for.

So if the C42s are similiar to the KM184s, my gut feeling would be to grab the C42 because in my opinion its better already if it gets rid of that flubby tubby low mids that i kept finding in the KM184s. Might work better for pianos at least.

Werd,

Danny
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top