China 'KM184'?

[jp8]

Hi,
can you please post a link to that Youtube "shootout" ?

All cardioid microphones sound thin and "awkward" to me on an off-axis response, with no exception, which is completely normal.
Thin because a lot of frequencies are of course filtered, and "awkward" because is doesn't sound good for sure on "off-axis" as it's a directional microphone so it's supposed to sound good on Axis with the front of the capsule, and reject the sides and back.

But "Awkward" is a subjective term that can mean diferent things for diferent people so it would be great to see and listen that shootout you referred to so that we know exact what you are talking about

Thanks

Of course, "awkward" is subjective. Essence of my message was that off-axis sound quality matters.

I had a hard time hearing the on-axis differences between the SDC's on the guitar, but off-axis the differences were like day and night. Which one you prefer is of course a matter of taste... My vote goes to the 3U capsule mics.

Jan

 

[Whoops]

Of course, "awkward" is subjective. Essence of my message was that off-axis sound quality matters.

I had a hard time hearing the on-axis differences between the SDC's on the guitar, but off-axis the differences were like day and night. Which one you prefer is of course a matter of taste... My vote goes to the 3U capsule mics.

Jan

Thank you so much Jan,
I will listen to it properly at the studio.

 

[telewulf]

Don´t worry Barry!
I didn´t get that one either ... and I live only 100 km from the Netherlands. I´d say there was no way, you could have known that fine details of national-stereofonic culture.

Mind you, I should keep my trap shut anyway. ... Which stereo-system did we Moffens (Germans) invent? MS - The most mathematical and certainly the ugliest - have a look at the unlikly signal chain ...

Best wishes from Bremen
Wulf

 

[MagnetoSound]

There should be a laugh emoji with the Like button

 

[JF]

Essence of my message was that off-axis sound quality matters.

2 problems with this kind of test.
A mic is behaving differently when you pack surface next to it's membrane and block the cardioid openings. Try to measure microphones and just pack 2 next to each other - you already have significant differences. Do that with 5 ... puh.
Not sure about the distance to the guitar (looks close at the video) - but 5cm mic movement is audible. Also angles are different.

It's still great to have these tests but be aware you don't hear just the mic difference here. It's a mix of influences.

 

[RuudNL]

If he used the same microphone for the guitar and his voice, the microphone placement is completely wrong IMHO.

 

[MagnetoSound]

I think the EF-47 was on the vocal, no ..?

 

[RuudNL]

A singing guitar player is often a problem, even with two microphones.
In such a situation I often use two figure-8 microphones, to obtain optimal separation.

 

[jp8]

2 problems with this kind of test.
A mic is behaving differently when you pack surface next to it's membrane and block the cardioid openings. Try to measure microphones and just pack 2 next to each other - you already have significant differences. Do that with 5 ... puh.
Not sure about the distance to the guitar (looks close at the video) - but 5cm mic movement is audible. Also angles are different.

It's still great to have these tests but be aware you don't hear just the mic difference here. It's a mix of influences.

Sure, any kind of testing has its pros and cons. Take recordings one mic at a time and people will say that the artist does not sing/play the same on every take and therefore they cannot properly judge the subtile differences between the mics...

Jan

 

[RuudNL]

Because there was some discussion about the off-axis response of the KM184 compared to the 3U cardioid capsules, I decided to test this myself.
With one of the microphones 'out of phase', I could create an almost perfect null.
Addressing both microphones under an angle or even from the side, did not result in an audible difference.
So I suppose that the fact that more microphone were placed very close together influenced the perception of a different off-axis response.
Anyway: I did not find proof of a different off-axis response.

 

[JF]

Sure, any kind of testing has its pros and cons. Take recordings one mic at a time and people will say that the artist does not sing/play the same on every take and therefore they cannot properly judge the subtile differences between the mics...

Jan

And that's totally legit - different takes are a no go.
You have less influences when just comparing 2 microphones for e.g. And with real useage you get to know their characteristics over time. But that's not useable for an online comparison ...

After all it would be helpful to have an independend source for on and off axis response measurements ...

 

[Recording Engineer]

And that's totally legit - different takes are a no go.

I’m more of the opinion that we’re constantly doing different takes in different sessions, in the same session, and even in the same song (when parts come around again). If the difference between mics is so subtle that I can go one way or another in mic preference, depending on the take, then it really doesn’t matter enough to me. It’s the consistent preferences I have, no matter the take, that I care about.

 

[MicMaven]

They are going to great lengths to exactly copy a product, then forget to use quality components...

Yep - but better components would mean lower margins and less revenue. We see this with other products ranging from pseudo Parker fountain pens to copycat software defined radios. They not only use inferior components, they "Muntz" as many components as possible without completely killing the device. Of course performance suffers, but it still works for around 20 percent of the cost of a legitimate unit. This misappropriates another man's creative work product and takes sales from him. But then, living off another man's effort is OK these days. (heavy sigh)

I like the way this outfit borrows the Neumann logo, but truncates the name name as just "Neuma" - as if that is not "confusingly similar" under trade name/mark laws . . . Oh well. But that is just MY take. . . . JHR

 

[jp8]

For higher profits, they could have used a simpler circuit. But they don't. And reverse engineering and making an almost exact copy isn't cheap either. So that is why it doesn't make sense to me to save a few pennies on parts.

I cannot publish the prices that my company pays for our components here, but the the chinese parts that we buy are perhaps just 10% cheaper compared to the global brands. Not 80% less. And maybe it's just one part (JFET) for which they have to spend a bit more and get a much better product. Takstar proves you can build low noise mics and sell at a bargain price, even at less than20% of the price of a KM184 knock-off. And look how popular they are on this forum. They are recommended everywhere. Quality sells and if that KM184 was of the same quality, I'm convinced they would get better reviews, sell better and generate more revenue, despite the marginally higher component costs. There is just no excuse to use piss-poor components.

Jan

 

[Whoops]

I like the way this outfit borrows the Neumann logo, but truncates the name name as just "Neuma" - as if that is not "confusingly similar" under trade name/mark laws . . .

The name is not truncated at all,
The microphones come with Neumann written and use the exact same Neumann logo.
They just edit the photos in Aliexpress and erase some parts of the name and the logo in the photos.

But the product itself that you receive is branded Neumann, and just by looking to it most people would not ever realize it was not an original Neumann.