Post by: Fibes on January 07, 2008, 04:49:28 PM
IZZIT TROO?
Post by: Halfway Competent on January 07, 2008, 05:24:21 PM
http://www.mercenary.com/josephsonc42.html
I've never used it or a KM-84, so I can't comment on whether this truly is a KM-84 substitute.
Post by: trock on January 07, 2008, 07:44:48 PM
something like that, fletcher can fill you in more
Post by: Bill_Urick on January 08, 2008, 06:08:53 AM
| trock wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 19:44 |
yes, i read fletcher was sick and tired of not having an 84 so mercenary commissioned someone to build a mic for them. i think its km-69 or something. however it is not a clone, its its own mic, but i read on GS or somewhere its very tasy and around 950 US. something like that, fletcher can fill you in more |
Try $400.00.
Can they make a KM86 knock-off as well?
Please.....
Post by: Fletcher on January 08, 2008, 07:29:21 AM
The progression is sort of like how the Great River MP-2NV relates to a Neve 1073 pre-amp... in other words... we followed the technological progression and made the mic a bit quieter, and a bit more open sounding [not harsh, not "forced bright"... but "open"].
The mic will retail in the US for $950 USD... the important parts are made and assembled in the US... stuff like the body tube, the clip, the cardboard and wooden boxes, the logo badge are all made in China.
We were hoping to have it out before X-Mas... now we're hoping by February.
There will be all kinds of poop and hoopla when we have everything ready to ship... in the meanwhile there are demo units available from Jukebox LTD. in Paris and Unity Audio in the UK... in the US, we're still working on it.
Peace.
Post by: ricknroll on January 08, 2008, 01:32:00 PM
| Fletcher wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 04:29 |
in other words... we followed the technological progression and made the mic a bit quieter, and a bit more open sounding [not harsh, not "forced bright"... but "open"]. |
Fletcher,
Have you compared them to Klaus-modded KM-84s? I've got a pair (technically, Telefunken-branded M280Ns, but the same mic as the KM84 less the -10dB pad) that he modded and as far as I understand it, he removes negative feedback from the amp, which results in a more "open" sound.
Rick
Post by: Fletcher on January 09, 2008, 04:38:00 AM
I've never heard anything come from German Master Works that wasn't absolutely brilliant!!! That man has a real touch with the tools of the trade!
Post by: Bill_Urick on January 09, 2008, 07:20:22 AM
| Halfway Competent wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 17:24 |
I believe that is the Josephson C42 you are thinking of: http://www.mercenary.com/josephsonc42.html I've never used it or a KM-84, so I can't comment on whether this truly is a KM-84 substitute. |
Apparently this ain't it.
Post by: trock on January 09, 2008, 11:39:53 AM
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 09, 2008, 02:15:11 PM
Post by: tom eaton on January 09, 2008, 02:30:27 PM
Post by: wwittman on January 09, 2008, 08:18:39 PM
what kind of transformer does it use?
| Fletcher wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 07:29 |
Still a couple of weeks from it's full release the KM-69 is Mercenary's first product... it's a small diaphragm FET condenser that started out being based on the KM-84 but it ain't a KM-84. The progression is sort of like how the Great River MP-2NV relates to a Neve 1073 pre-amp... in other words... we followed the technological progression and made the mic a bit quieter, and a bit more open sounding [not harsh, not "forced bright"... but "open"]. The mic will retail in the US for $950 USD... the important parts are made and assembled in the US... stuff like the body tube, the clip, the cardboard and wooden boxes, the logo badge are all made in China. We were hoping to have it out before X-Mas... now we're hoping by February. There will be all kinds of poop and hoopla when we have everything ready to ship... in the meanwhile there are demo units available from Jukebox LTD. in Paris and Unity Audio in the UK... in the US, we're still working on it. Peace. |
Post by: Fletcher on January 10, 2008, 12:48:28 AM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 14:15 |
And given Fletcher's tiff with Neumann, the "69" is "fuck Neumann"? |
Uhhhh.... I don't know what your life is all about but to me "69" is "we're both happy"... hence the M-A phone number is [+1] 508-543-0069... 00=we're not talking... 69=we're both happy.
It certainly ain't "fuck Neumann"... if anything it's 'let's take Neumann to the next level of pleasure'.
| wwittman wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 20:18 |
so. what kind of transformer does it use? |
One that is exceptionally proprietary, made only for this microphone/amplifier circuit and has a frequency response to die for!!
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 10, 2008, 11:48:48 AM
Post by: Fletcher on January 11, 2008, 11:19:47 AM
The current M-A product has only to do with my requirements as a recording engineer... there is no venom nor vengenance behind the product.
The whole thing started as a misguided but well intended action on my part... through the whole "Mercenary Editions" thing I have been in contact with some of the world's best analog audio designers... so when I need something or think of something I can often get someone to build it for me.
Well this little bit of meglomania got a tad out of hand so I had a friend design this mic for me... and then dumbass that I am realized that we didn't have a "manufacturing partner" to make it a Mercenary Edition... which meant that I either had the world's most expensive one of a kind small diaphragm FET condenser mic in my arsenal or we better start to figure out how to manufacture this product so we could recoup the R&D costs...
Sometimes some of the best ideas come from a small bit of stupidity... hopefully this is one of them.
Peace.
Post by: trock on January 11, 2008, 11:44:04 AM
you read tons bout the 84 and how everyone wants one for acoustic recording, but they are more expensive then your street price for the 69, and of course those are used ones. thus making your mic something alot would want to check out
Post by: ricknroll on January 11, 2008, 03:32:55 PM
| trock wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 08:44 |
you read tons bout the 84 and how everyone wants one for acoustic recording, but they are more expensive then your street price for the 69, and of course those are used ones. |
At $950, I wouldn't call the upcoming Mercenary mic "cheaper" than a KM84 unless someone decides to pay too much money on eBay for one. Even then, the one KM84 I bought off ebay (last year) I paid $900 for. Of course, as you pointed out, you're probably going to end up with a used KM84 if you decide to get one. If I didn't already have 5 KM84s I'd probably try out the KM69s when they're available.
Rick
Post by: Hank Alrich on January 11, 2008, 05:18:08 PM
| ricknroll wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 12:32 | ||
At $950, I wouldn't call the upcoming Mercenary mic "cheaper" than a KM84 unless someone decides to pay too much money on eBay for one. Even then, the one KM84 I bought off ebay (last year) I paid $900 for. Of course, as you pointed out, you're probably going to end up with a used KM84 if you decide to get one. If I didn't already have 5 KM84s I'd probably try out the KM69s when they're available. Rick |
Are you thinking of the KM184? Because, yeah, you're not going to bet a new KM84 these days unless someone's grandpa left one in the closet.
Post by: trock on January 11, 2008, 09:18:30 PM
Post by: ricknroll on January 11, 2008, 10:03:47 PM
| Hank Alrich wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 14:18 |
Are you thinking of the KM184? Because, yeah, you're not going to bet a new KM84 these days unless someone's grandpa left one in the closet. |
No, not thinking of KM184s. There are bound to be a few virgin KM84s out there, given the large number of the mics Neumann manufactured. Grampa's closet could be a starting point...
Rick
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 11, 2008, 11:06:20 PM
Post by: tom eaton on January 11, 2008, 11:54:09 PM
Post by: Fletcher on January 12, 2008, 06:07:24 PM
| ricknroll wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 15:32 |
At $950, I wouldn't call the upcoming Mercenary mic "cheaper" than a KM84 |
I wouldn't call it "cheaper" either... nor would I call it less expensive. The mic is what it is and the price is the price... so, if you like what you hear and think it's worth the money... great.
If you don't think it's worth the money than buy something else. This isn't a "popularity contest" and we're not in it to win TEC
Post by: George_ on January 13, 2008, 04:09:50 PM
is it a asian OEM-model, customized by mercenary?
Post by: J.J. Blair on January 13, 2008, 06:46:42 PM
BTW, unless you totally prefer this mic to the KM84, KM84s can be had for slightly more money. They seem to have a steady eBay price of $1,000.
Post by: Fletcher on January 13, 2008, 09:07:00 PM
The important bits are made right here in the good ol' United Snakes of Amerikkka [you can ask where... but I ain't tellin']... so yes, there is a little Asia involved, just not the parts I considered important. On the bright side... we ordered the body and the logo badge with extra lead in them so please keep those parts away from small children.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 13, 2008, 11:42:49 PM
and what's a little brain-damage among friends?
Post by: compasspnt on January 13, 2008, 11:59:41 PM
and
Superman-proof.
Post by: George_ on January 14, 2008, 02:02:10 AM
| Quote: |
and what's a little brain-damage among friends? |
that is 100% right. I am not the one that want to have troubles with you fletcher but I want to remember you, how you bashed an other brand for having some parts made in ASIA.
looking forward to hearing this thing.
cheers
Post by: J.J. Blair on January 14, 2008, 02:31:50 AM
Post by: George_ on January 14, 2008, 02:44:56 AM
| Quote: |
the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, it's a Chinese mic... which is made by hourly employees who repeat their tasks and get paid vs. the skilled German craftsman who appear to have a personal interest and stake in their craftsmanship. Peace |
chineseworkmanship..
and...
| Quote: |
The problem is capsules. They still haven't figured out how to do consistent work with the sputtering of the Mylar machining of the backplates, tensioning of the diaphragm and final testing / "QC" of the product. So... I don't know what kind of testing procedure you have for determining capsule quality, nor do I know your failure/rejection rate of these capsules... nor do I really care because it's your buisiness and frankly none of my business unless you deem me worthy of your confidence. These are the basic premises on which I based my statement. There are a half dozen other specifics I have left out which add to the basis for my apprehension vis a vis the final product and consistency from unit to unit but I'm not here to give you the tools to alter your marketing, I'm here to voice the broad strokes of my apprehension and explain my previous statement. |
and you are right, he is talking about audioparts, espacially the capsule.
so can you be a bit more specific about witch part is from where?
cheers
Post by: J.J. Blair on January 14, 2008, 05:43:50 AM
"the logo badge is chinese, as is the wood box and the mic clip, the body tube... unimportant stuff like that."
I think that answers the question. These are the non essential parts. Granted, as we said, you might get lead poisoning from them, but they aren't in the audio path!
Post by: George_ on January 14, 2008, 05:44:47 AM
Post by: Larrchild on January 14, 2008, 02:49:14 PM
| myNameIsGeorge wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 05:44 |
body tube unimportant? |
Unimportant in this case meaning almost impossible to do incorrectly to adversely influence the sound.
That kind of unimportant.
Post by: George_ on January 14, 2008, 03:45:07 PM
| Larrchild wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 20:49 | ||
Unimportant in this case meaning almost impossible to do incorrectly to adversely influence the sound. That kind of unimportant. |
we are talking about body-resonances... right? *just that I talk about something diffrent, because of my bad english*
Post by: Fibes on January 14, 2008, 05:13:08 PM
| myNameIsGeorge wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 15:45 | ||||
we are talking about body-resonances... right? *just that I talk about something diffrent, because of my bad english* |
JJ,
Hit me with a rock.
I'll have a pair of KM-69s in my hands tomorrow.
Post by: J.J. Blair on January 14, 2008, 05:54:08 PM
Kevin, would you like that to be a hard rock or a soft rock? Maybe some metal?
Post by: ricknroll on January 14, 2008, 06:14:50 PM
| Fletcher wrote on Sat, 12 January 2008 15:07 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I wouldn't call it "cheaper" either... nor would I call it less expensive. The mic is what it is and the price is the price... so, if you like what you hear and think it's worth the money... great. If you don't think it's worth the money than buy something else. This isn't a "popularity contest" and we're not in it to win TEC Post by: seedyunderbelly.com on January 14, 2008, 08:11:25 PM Post by: Fibes on January 14, 2008, 09:24:59 PM
Heavy... Post by: George_ on January 15, 2008, 12:11:46 AM
now that I found out, that we are talking about the same, it doesn't make sense to me, how your answers are  the bodytube is very imporant. if it resonates t.h., kick the mic in the garbage. ask klaus if you don't belief George 
Post by: J.J. Blair on January 15, 2008, 12:34:30 AM Regardless, there'd be no difference in resonance between a body made in the US and one made in China, in terms of resonance. Post by: George_ on January 15, 2008, 12:42:49 AM
yes JJ, I know, but you can make that with propermaterials, out of the hearingrange or acousticly cover it. remember the new genelec? they resonate at 3khz (at least the 8030), that is.. not cool. very tiring, and covers up sound. now let's do it the opposite way and sing in the genelec and call it your microphone  cheers Post by: J.J. Blair on January 15, 2008, 12:54:05 AM Post by: Fibes on January 15, 2008, 10:52:34 AM I'm going to have to lick them until nightfall to get the full effects of the extra lead so that I can burn this thread from my memory. Post by: George_ on January 15, 2008, 11:43:01 AM
Post by: seedyunderbelly.com on January 15, 2008, 11:43:21 AM Maybe build a set of Xylophones or Vibraphones with them. You could use the new Mercenary mic to record it with. I would guess Fletcher is not building junk. ------------ Fibes, Please report how it sounds. It would be interesting to get the thread back on track, ie. How it sounds next to a good example of a km84. thx-j Post by: George_ on January 15, 2008, 02:32:24 PM
I guess you are just brabbling, wothout ever having manufactured or developed a microphone. this WAS and IS no offense against Fletcher or his microphone. I never touched it, and I never heard it. all good now.. cheers Post by: Fibes on January 15, 2008, 03:57:55 PM The guts of the mics appear to be well hidden by plasticised potted meat. Post by: Barry Hufker on January 15, 2008, 04:18:18 PM Post by: Barry Hufker on January 15, 2008, 06:44:00 PM So, while it's true a body tube of a given length will resonate at a certain frequency, whether made in the U.S. or China, it could well be (and I'm not physicist so I can't prove this) that a thinner body tube (possibly made in China) might resonate more quickly than a thicker one (possibly made in the U.S.). With that in mind (and I should would like someone to confirm or deny this to be the case), I think there is some solid (pun intended) reasoning in George's statements. It seems to me there is some evidence for this idea to be found in loudspeaker cabinet resonance. Some manufacturers go to great lengths with their choice of materials and the thickness of the speaker's cabinet walls to keep them from vibrating. Granted the air movement in a speaker is exponentially greater than in the body tube of a microphone, but I have found, through the use of the Enhanced Audio Mic Mount that even small vibrations in a microphone body can have an audible impact. Post by: trock on January 15, 2008, 06:57:22 PM i wasn't trying to compare the mics or price at all. the title of the thread says "mercenary's answer to the KM84" so since i had heard the story about this ,or read it somewhere i was just trying to point out that fletcher had commisioned a mic after not having an 84 around, and that this is what came out of it, not that it was the same or trying to be the same, but to also say "hey its about the same price as a used km84" or at least as i have seen them being sold at so it made sense to me and i would like to see a picture also Post by: Kris on January 16, 2008, 10:01:31 AM
Why would China make a thinner body tube than was specified??? Just to spite Fletcher? Post by: Fletcher on January 16, 2008, 10:26:45 AM I wonder if this will make certain serial numbers more sought after than others as the years roll by... maybe... probably not. Post by: Barry Hufker on January 16, 2008, 11:07:58 AM Fletcher, I certainly don't want to make an issue out of body thickness. Every detail *might* be able to be considered in a "cost is no object" microphone. But I think everyone can understand the importance of delivering a first-class mic within the financial reach of wider market. I'm not implying or suggesting lesser quality than your high standards demand. I'm sure we'll all be thrilled with the new mic. Post by: compasspnt on January 16, 2008, 12:46:23 PM Post by: tom eaton on January 16, 2008, 01:26:54 PM Though you do prefer the Rode NT6 to the NT5 in certain applications... which is the exact experiment one would need to undertake to see how the body impacts the sound. If I remember correctly, you thought the NT6 (remote capsule/head) sounded better on acoustic than the NT5 (same capsule/head attached to traditional SDC "tube" housing). Is that correct? t Post by: Larrchild on January 16, 2008, 04:12:13 PM This body tube is much shorter and smaller diameter for it's wall thickness. It's resonance is therefore much less. If I were to take a wild-ass non-Klaus guess, I'd say contributing factors are: Capsule: 80% Head basket: 15%, other mounting and isolation: 4.9%, Body reasonances, real or imagined: .1%
Post by: compasspnt on January 16, 2008, 05:52:59 PM I would have to do some tests on various sources, and also by tapping, to see if I though there was a real difference. Post by: tom eaton on January 16, 2008, 08:21:22 PM So have at it. ... t Post by: J.J. Blair on January 16, 2008, 10:12:14 PM You see, she's met Terry, and knows he's not a bum, so I needed him to make me look like less of a forum addict. LOL. Besides, I've been in here during ear breaks. It's only 7:00 and I already completed two mixes today, and even sang vocal pads on one of them. Post by: Larrchild on January 16, 2008, 10:20:23 PM much. Terry's a good influence, JJ. I don't think you will start skipping class. Post by: Ryan Slowey on January 17, 2008, 10:03:22 AM
They seem to be on the rise. There's a pair on ebay right now w/ a "buy it now" price of $3,499, and a single for $1,299, which makes the Mercenary mic all the more appealing. Post by: Fibes on January 17, 2008, 10:58:31 AM I'm sick of Fleabay, sick of trying and actually sick right now otherwise i'd be giving reports on the KM-69s at my shop. Sure, i could hook them up but I'm not sure I'd be hearing any differnce with this headcold. Post by: trock on January 17, 2008, 11:33:49 AM instead of used on ebay, a new one that sounds great and has a full warranty and support for the designers is priceless IMHO Post by: Kris on January 17, 2008, 12:24:43 PM
Who in their right mind would want to sell their 84s (especially at that bargain rate)?  I'm really looking forward to hearing this new mic (as long as it sounds closer to an 84, than say a c42 ).
Post by: Fibes on January 17, 2008, 02:01:03 PM an 1800 dollar pair isn't in my lexicon or ebay ability. Post by: George_ on January 17, 2008, 02:49:47 PM
I sold my last pair of KM84 for 450$..
Post by: George_ on January 17, 2008, 02:50:47 PM
your reply had absolutely no content.. please try again
Post by: Kris on January 17, 2008, 02:52:52 PM Post by: seedyunderbelly.com on January 17, 2008, 11:07:21 PM absolutely, if they are continuing to go up in price then the 69 could be the answer for ALOT of people instead of used on ebay, a new one that sounds great and has a full warranty and support for the designers is priceless IMHO content= 1. if they (km84s)-ed. are continuing to go up in price 2.the 69 could be the answer for ALOT of people yes? Post by: Fletcher on January 18, 2008, 07:09:36 AM
Which is kinda what we did with the "new build"... didn't change the "silk"... but opened up the top a bit. Peace. Post by: trock on January 18, 2008, 08:57:51 AM if someone loves the sound of the km84 and finds a used one off ebay or somewhere for 1200 bucks and has to buy it sight unseen with no warranty, or any knowledge of its history but they know that they love it, then they stumble across the 69 and while a different mic altogether, they decide wow this sounds great to and wow i can get a warranty, and wow i can get it cheaper and wow i can talk to the designer. then to me this has alot of meaning, YMMV Post by: C.Cash on January 18, 2008, 09:19:15 AM
Post by: Fibes on January 18, 2008, 09:48:05 AM
I'm planning on doing a lil bit for y'all once my head is better and I can get some help (my assistant just told me he's leaving to go back home to WV). I woulda had Miles take some pics when he stopped by last night but he'd been robbed at gunpoint and didn't have his Iphone... I love finishing albums with a head cold. Post by: ricknroll on January 18, 2008, 04:12:47 PM
This is true - buying mics off eBay can definitely be a risky proposition. When I buy used mics I try to get them from studio friends or friends of friends. Last year I bought a pair of KM84s from a friend of a friend who is a retired engineering in the Bay Area. He was the original owner, so I knew the history of the mics. Klaus Heyne also inspected them and fixed one minor problem with one of the mics so even after Klaus was done with them, I still paid less than $1100 per microphone. Klaus didn't do his full blown mods by any stretch of the imagination, but at least I know that I've got a couple of stock KM84s that work and sound the way they're supposed to. It could be much more expensive to end up with the same result shopping on eBay. Rick Post by: Larrchild on January 20, 2008, 03:15:18 PM
As opposed to taking the silk out and adding the high end anyway, like that black thing Neumann made. I'm all for this. Post by: compasspnt on January 20, 2008, 07:49:13 PM Post by: New Orleans Steve on January 20, 2008, 10:56:24 PM I think the thing here is that body resonance does factor into a mic design. Really exceptionally may ruin an otherwise good mic. I suppose that the ‘Made in China Problem’ here. R the potential ‘Made in China Problem’ could be that these Chinese don’t fully consider or appreciate these factors as much as much as they consider and appreciated……cheap. Or could there be something that the time proven mics do in design and manufacture to increase the chances of a successful design the an upstart (China) might overlook or cut corners on. So at $2,000 a pair, How much if made by someone earning a living wage in a democracy had made it…..or that part? Just that one part. How much do we save for the china parts? Looking at the Josephson offering….wow, ½ the price. Seems like Fletcher now has to say he is a dealer, but his mic is twice the price….and worth it. From the mercenary site When the folks at Josephson Engineering sent over the C-42 to try we very quickly forgot about the KM-184 and fell in love with the C-42. While the "vintage" KM-84 has a thickness to it the KM-184 didn't. The C-42 does. It also has a bit of extra sparkle. This mic really better be good! Since our esteemed moderator is a classy M.F., I really want to see what he’s been up to. I'm kinda looking at S.D.C. s Steve Post by: Fletcher on January 21, 2008, 04:09:27 PM As for the cost savings using Chinese Child Labor for the unimportant bits [body tube, wood box, etc.]... it's substantial... and that money was plowed into the component selection that comprises the amplifier... so the end net result is a better sounding product for about the same price... +/-3db. As for the C-42... still love it... but they sound different. The C-42 is quite a bit more forward and slightly harder sounding... which isn't necessarily a bad thing just not as pleasant on Hi/Hat and overheads which is where this mic was originally designed to go... we just happened to luck into it being seriously cool for acoustic guitars, piano, etc., etc., etc. Post by: Kris on January 22, 2008, 11:54:29 AM
So it sounds 'better' in earbuds???
Post by: bblackwood on January 22, 2008, 10:44:20 PM This is how far the pro audio community has fallen. "What do I buy and how do I set it?" Post by: Tim Halligan on January 22, 2008, 10:59:30 PM
* Stands and applauds * Cheers, Tim Post by: wwittman on January 23, 2008, 02:29:17 AM
and this mic has a transformer, right? (whereas a C42 is transformerless) is there a pad? tried it on snare drum? ps. I have an unashamed "agenda". it's to make the best possible records. those without an "agenda" need to get one. Post by: Fibes on January 23, 2008, 09:18:37 AM On the KM-69 front I have to admit I went into this with an agenda when i ordered them which was twofold: 1. I need a mic that fills that KM84 role nicely that doesn't have the added PITA on remote gigs of an external PSU which is usually jacklegstagehandbootfodder. 2. I wanted to like the Josephson more because of the price point. I used the KM69ast night for the first time on a "less than ideal" project where i didn't feel the need to rape the clock trying every mic for "that sound." The night was about "all things guitar" from acoustic flat picking, crappy Harmony acoustic archtop slide work and various lead elctric guitars through my trust Tone King Imperial. The night started out slow with a creepy sparse tune that required whisper quiet clean slide guitar, the Tone King was too noisy and we opted for a DI guitar through a Tape echo for the etherial stuff. KM69 was sidelined due to noisefloor issues. Part two was flat picked and strummed acoustic parts for a couple swampy folk numbers. The guitar wasn't ideal but the top end on the 69 was spot on and after backing a nervous player up its proximity effect (I usually like omni on acoustic) was tailored back nicely. I still didn't want to like this mic, after all it's not cheap and is basically the same body as one of the "TNC" sdc mics with what appears to be a swapped out grill. The mic is obviously heavier than the TNC and the 184s we have laying around. It still was doing well by me when we slid from flat picked to strummed parts and moved into "electric mode." This is ordinarily where i wish i had an 84 instead of the 184s and Josephsons, prolly where my M269c would go on an amp. Ry Cooder style slide guitar alternating between hi and lo fi approaches and I'll be damned if I never noticed too much fizz or that strident hair that a 184 would find on that amp/metal slide combo. The top was glassy and clear. I still didn't want to like the mic but it wasn't helping my agenda. We went through a host of tunes, over dub after overdub and I gotta say not one time did the thought to swap over to the idling M269c cross my mind. I like the mic as of last night. Next week I'll be doing a shootout on acoustic, snare and maybe a few other things with the KM184, C42, SM2 and M269c. Hopefully i'll find the time to post them here. BTW it doesn't have a pad and it's a hot mic, duringone of the electric tracks I had to put a Shure inline pad into chain since the API 512s pad wasn't quite enough for a couple passages. Post by: gwailoh on January 23, 2008, 02:52:38 PM Post by: Fletcher on January 23, 2008, 06:01:33 PM Post by: wwittman on January 23, 2008, 11:26:23 PM it DOES have a transformer (right?) and have you tried it on a snare drum? Post by: compasspnt on January 23, 2008, 11:41:02 PM Does it have an output transformer? If so, whose? If not, why? Post by: Fletcher on January 24, 2008, 12:27:20 AM Post by: J.J. Blair on January 24, 2008, 01:48:21 AM Post by: compasspnt on January 24, 2008, 08:51:55 AM Post by: Barry Hufker on January 24, 2008, 10:04:07 AM And exactly how full is that grave going to be before you finally climb in?
Post by: ricknroll on January 25, 2008, 05:11:08 PM
Rick Post by: Fletcher on January 25, 2008, 05:47:42 PM It was Klaus Heyne that told me that the capsule distorted before the amplifier on the KM-84 so I believed the source... at least I hope the KM-84 was the mic he mentioned where the capsule distorted before the amp... if it wasn't then maybe we made a "boo boo". Post by: ricknroll on January 25, 2008, 06:52:02 PM If I mic a snare with a KM84 and don't engage the -10dB pad, it's pretty easy to hear nasty distortion on the recording. On the other hand, I've never heard that distortion when I've engaged the -10dB pad. There may be sonic degradation caused by the pad, but even with any side effects that sound still beats the dynamics I've tried on snare. On that subject, I have a mic built by Scott Hampton that has a Neumann K47 in it, and that's my current favorite for micing a snare. It's got a tube amp so the amp has plenty of headroom - no need for a pad. Thanks again to WW for suggesting the use of KM84 on snare... originally I only had a pair that didn't have pads, so I couldn't use them on snare (Telefunken M280Ns, to be precise), but I picked up a couple of KM84s after that just so I could take advantage of the pads. Rick Post by: Fletcher on January 29, 2008, 05:17:47 PM Post by: trock on January 31, 2008, 07:43:19 PM might want to stop over to GS and update the natives, they are getting restless on word from you on this http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/1 49603-mercenary-audio-km-69-a.html Post by: J.J. Blair on February 01, 2008, 05:49:34 PM Post by: wwittman on February 01, 2008, 06:06:59 PM (or should I say -10?) if the capsule of a KM84 distorted (how exactly DO you distort the capsule of a capacitor mic?) then the padded versions would sound no cleaner than the no-pad versions. and that's not true. WITH the pad, they work great on snare drums. without the pad, unusable if in close. I've heard other people say "the mic will "fold" ..." on a loud guitar amp, or close mic'ing a tom. but it's never been my experience. (whatever it means to them...) If condensers distort, it's generally between the capsule and the amp, and the pad tends to correct it just fine for my ears. whatever the trade offs are in super-technical land, I like the sound of padded 87's or um70s an inch from a screaming guitar amp or a tom, and the sound of a km-84 an inch from a snare. I DON'T like the sound of moving coil mics nearly as much in those situations. Ever. although I want to hear Klaus's drum sound!
Post by: wwittman on February 01, 2008, 06:08:59 PM
that's what I'm wondering as well. could he have been referring to the difference between pads in between the capsule and amp, versus pads on the OUTPUT of the mic before the desk/preamp? Post by: Fletcher on February 02, 2008, 08:03:43 AM
Post by: Barry Hufker on February 02, 2008, 11:58:59 AM You don't have to wait for version II. Do a "Schoeps" and offer both a pad and a low-cut filter as options which screw in between the capsule and the amplifier. Post by: J.J. Blair on February 02, 2008, 02:03:11 PM I'll tell you a really weird one: I had a session with Ross, and we had a CK1 on 451 for the snare. The assistant didn't screw the pad on, and it actually caused an echo in the 451! You'd get two snare hits for the price of one. It was totally bizarre. Post by: Larrchild on February 02, 2008, 04:52:59 PM Capsule pads are just fixed capacitance added across the capsule, usually. I'm sure they dull it up a little. But you were gonna EQ that mic, anyway. Post by: Steve Folta on February 02, 2008, 06:45:08 PM
That's exactly what happened to me when I tried using a KM-184 on kick. I never knew why until now. Post by: J.J. Blair on February 02, 2008, 09:12:23 PM Post by: Fletcher on February 02, 2008, 09:37:51 PM Post by: trock on February 11, 2008, 11:25:32 AM http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/175619-mercenary-aud io-km-69-a.html Post by: Fletcher on February 13, 2008, 09:22:15 AM Post by: Oliver Archut on February 13, 2008, 10:19:46 AM just as a though to pad or not, there are a couple of different ways to pad down a mic on the capsule/amplifier side, 1. a feedback cap from the load resistor to the grid/gate, 2. a loading cap across the capsule (reduces membrane distortion) 3. a grounding cap after the coupling cap as a capacitive voltage divider, but all of those ways will suck down the overall tone, because they add 1. phase shift at high frequency none linear phase angle/symmetry problems 2. loss of high frequency as well as muddy low end 3. all of the above... Personal I never like any sort of pad on a KM84 (switch), or KM54 (Z28 capsule inline pad)... Best regards Post by: ricknroll on February 13, 2008, 07:26:28 PM In other words, using the pad on KM84 might adversely affect the sound, but the tradeoff is worth it, because in the end the "compromised" KM84 still sounds better on snare than a given dynamic. Post by: J.J. Blair on February 13, 2008, 08:21:34 PM Post by: Samc on February 14, 2008, 01:44:42 PM http://www.mbho.de/pdf/mbnm440_mbnm410.pdf Post by: Fletcher on February 14, 2008, 03:45:21 PM Seriously guys... we put this thing together with H/H in mind originally... then acoustic guitars and pianos. There are a ton of great mics for kik, snare, guitars that are louder than fuck, etc. Post by: seedyunderbelly.com on February 19, 2008, 03:34:41 PM j Post by: Alan Meyerson on February 24, 2008, 05:02:56 PM I used it on cello on this movie I'm working on. I used it in about 9 cues, each cue had multiple passes. It did great! Very balanced, but still good sizzle on the upper mids, similar to a KM54. Sometime, when you do multiple passes, things get harsh. This didn't at all. It stayed very musical. I'm going to do some blind comparisons later this week. I'll keep updating. But, so far, really good. Alan Post by: maarvold on February 24, 2008, 06:06:40 PM http://www.lasvegasproaudio.com/m600.html Post by: Larrchild on February 24, 2008, 08:34:47 PM Post by: Fletcher on February 25, 2008, 06:19:19 AM Post by: wwittman on March 08, 2008, 01:58:39 PM Post by: Gone on March 10, 2008, 04:05:09 AM
and a right angle adapter or swivel, like the old 451s? Post by: compasspnt on March 10, 2008, 09:01:37 AM Post by: MagnetoSound on March 10, 2008, 01:53:08 PM Post by: Halfway Competent on March 10, 2008, 10:14:28 PM
Post by: Fletcher on March 11, 2008, 06:21:35 AM Post by: Alan Meyerson on March 12, 2008, 11:48:10 PM I recorded it next to a B&K 4011. Very different. Sort of what you'd expect. The 4011 was a little more sparkly. The KM69 was warmer and richer sounding. I'm not sure which one I'll use, but it was a really good use for the 69. Definitely a good piano mic. Post by: Larrchild on March 13, 2008, 01:23:52 AM Then you can empirically find a cap value to put inside to give you 10dB attenuation. Screw-on 10dB pad. Post by: Fibes on March 24, 2008, 02:32:13 PM I will say this, these mics require every bit of phantom power up to 48v you can provide. Post by: Fibes on April 09, 2008, 11:49:02 AM 1. Steinway piano with a 17 piece orchestra, five piece and 15 piece. 2. Flamenco guitar 3. Tanbur 4. Derek Trucks' old and dark resonator 5. Crazy Indian Slide guitar (Debashish B...) Now that I've gotten a fair amount of out in the worl use out of this mic I have two suggestions for screw on mods: 1. Side address (less sensitive) tighter pattern (Think 150 hyper-cardoid). 2. A way to knock off the sensitivity a bit. Most likely at the capsule but I ain't a mic design guy, just thinkin out loud. Also i got to hear a bit from Jerry Douglas about the trials, triumphs and tribulations Bil Vorndick and him had with the 69, the El Diablo and this DI/mic modeler stomp box they were helping to develop. HRM, it didn't suck but it ain't a mic... Post by: Halfway Competent on April 09, 2008, 07:52:15 PM
Post by: Alan Meyerson on April 24, 2008, 02:33:06 AM It's officially a really good mic Post by: Fibes on April 24, 2008, 04:03:30 PM
Glad it's a reality to you now. congrats. |