Well, it's a KM 183 and sounds like a KM 183 with a digital output. And of course, omni-pattern. And so, what kind of digital inputs do you hope to connect this microphone to? It's not USB.

A marvelous microphone that is well suited to recording pipe organs.

Without an organ
Ms. Remy Ann David

John Willett has written about about the mics. Be warned that he is an employee by Sennheiser in UK -- in this case he has used his own money and I have always found him to be an honest guy not spilling good words unless he means it.

http://www.soundons…

I must say I find the idea very interesting. Putting the AD in the mic solves a lot of problems and can potentially give a very clean digital signal that can travel far on the cable without degradation. Guess there are a lot of other things to consider though.

Gunnar

I was thinking of going cheap and using the s/pdif inputs on a digital recorder. If that is not possible I suppose that I would need their special DMI 2 box.

leonin wrote: I was thinking of going cheap and using the s/pdif inputs on a digital recorder. If that is not possible I suppose that I would need their special DMI 2 box.

Not sure whether the mics can be externally synced at all...
From what I see on the website of a shop here, there are three varieties of each mic at the same price, 44, 48, and 96k. If you want to get anything else out of one, you need SRC. If you buy 44, you can never do 96k with it...

Daniel

d_fu wrote:
Not sure whether the mics can be externally synced at all...
From what I see on the website of a shop here, there are three varieties of each mic at the same price, 44, 48, and 96k. If you want to get anything else out of one, you need SRC. If you buy 44, you can never do 96k with it...

Daniel

The basic mic in stand alone/'starter kit' form isn't externally syncable, nor does it have changeable sample rates, etc.

However, whilst the mics are supplied in one of a choice of fixed output sample rates, these are just the initial supply setups. If you just buy the basic mic 'starter kit' then the mic is fixed to the sample rate (and other internal parameters) supplied; adding a DMI-2 and some external software allows external sync and control of all the many internal functions, including sample rates.

The mic's output is an AES42 stream, which is converted to other, more useable, formats via an external box. The external box comes in one of two types, the basic stand alone mic adapter or the DMI-2 stereo adapter/sync/control unit.

Buying a single mic, it comes in a 'starter kit' containing the mic and capsule, mic clip, foam windshield, an external adapter box (which may be ordered in one of two forms - one with an AES output, the other with an S/PDIF output) and a 12V AC 'wall wart' adapter to power it all. There's apparently a battery powered version too but I don't know whether or not this is available yet. The output from the adapter box is on a short flying lead, terminated in the appropriate connector for whichever output format is chosen.

To sync two or more mics for stereo or multichannel work, or to change the sample rates (or other parameters) from those supplied, requires the use of mains powered DMI-2 external interface/control box(es), each of which may handle two mics and the supplied remote control software and a computer. The DMI-2 boxes have AES/EBU outputs and may be externally synced and daisy-chained for control of multiple units.

The DMI-2 also adds access to a load of useful tricks including bi-directional remote control of the mics' internal DSP setup, access to the internal compressor/limiter setup and metering, sample rate, HPF, pre-attenuation, gain, polarity inversion, muting, activate/de-activate the internally generated test signals, even switch on and off the little blue LED on the mic body. Once set, one complete setup may be downloaded to the mic to serve as it's default configuration. So, for example, you could program your mics at home before leaving for a job and leave the computer at home, or set them up on arrival at the venue then disconnect the computer and use it for something else.

So, whilst the mics are sold in a few pre-programmed versions, they're still fully configurable if you have a DMI-2. Buying a stereo set with a DMI-2 (which you need if you want to work in stereo), and connecting up the remote software will enable you to change sample rates, and access all the other parameters.

I've not yet had hands on with these mics but I have heard some comparative recordings made by John Willett (outlined in his [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.soundons…"]user review[/]="http://www.soundons…"]user review[/] on the SOS site (linked above by Gunnar)) and they're interesting; thankfully, quite different from the ordinary KM183! As mentioned above, JW works as tech manager for Sennheiser UK (Neumann UK distributors) but I agree with Gunnar as to John's honesty. I've known him personally for some years and, though there's lots of things about which we amicably disagree, he has great integrity and is not given to behaving like a 'salesman'. Neither is he a man who spends his own money frivolously. Whether I agree with his various preferences and opinions or not, they're always honestly expressed and, unless he says otherwise, based upon his personal experience with the equipment.

There's also a full review of the KM184D, by Hugh Robjohns, published in the March issue of Sound On Sound (already available on line to subscribers). This will become available FOC on the SOS site in the fullness of time, otherwise you might still be able to find a print copy of the magazine, buy a back issue, or download a paid-for pdf of the review.
(MODS: Sorry if that over steps the advertising mark, please delete/amend as you see appropriate. (In the interests of disclosure: I don't work for SOS but I am one of the mods on their forums))

(MODS: Sorry if that over steps the advertising mark, please delete/amend as you see appropriate. (In the interests of disclosure: I don't work for SOS but I am one of the mods on their forums))

No problem here. The more information about these mics and this system the better we are. Many thanks 0VU and Gunnar for the links and data about these exciting new developments.

I am really interested to try the 183 digital omni's.
There is one more option for synching as I understand it. You can buy the basic version with AES or SPDIF out and plug these into a console (or external box) with sample rate converters. This will sync the two mics.

This would also be required for the new Schoeps digital mic bodies since they do not offer a DMI box like Neumann.

Cost is fairly high on this stuff. By my calculations a stereo set of Neumann 183 digital mics with the DMI box is circa $US 7000.00. That's quite a lot.

The sound had better be good. One can acquire remote control over their mics for much less than that entry fee--and we reject the built in peak limiter.

More flawed, already outdated technology. I'm certainly not impressed. They are not digital microphones! It's just a microphone with a convenient interface and analog-to-digital converter. Really kind of loony!

Just think about all those people that purchased Neve Capricorn digital consoles at $300,000. They are all trying to dump those wonderful digital consoles, since they are only 20 bit and obviously can't be used for quality recording. LOL

If you got money that you love to spend on "NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME" technologies, then go for it. I'll wait for a true optical/digital microphone. In the meantime, I guess I'll just have to use my crappy old Neve console and my old crappy Neumann tube and transistor microphones? Dammit!

Frustrated with my equipment and looking for a good sex therapist
Ms. Remy Ann David

RemyRAD wrote: More flawed, already outdated technology. I'm certainly not impressed. They are not digital microphones! It's just a microphone with a convenient interface and analog-to-digital converter. Really kind of loony!

I'm not in the market for something like this, BUT, if you factor in the costs of a matched pair of high quality mics, pres and converters, $5K is NOT very much, specially when you consider the added convenience.

RemyRAD wrote: Just think about all those people that purchased Neve Capricorn digital consoles at $300,000. They are all trying to dump those wonderful digital consoles, since they are only 20 bit and obviously can't be used for quality recording. LOL

I agree that certain digital decisions have backfired for some (sony 3348 anyone?)... But i think its time we reviewed our "investment in digital sucks" stance. Eg. The Metric Halo ULN-2 which has been around a long time, or the Lexicon 480L, which has been around for over two decades. Besides, I think 24/96 is going to be the maximum necessary capability for at least a decade... Nobody has taken 192 KHz seriously so far, and I am yet to hear of a true 24+ bit technology that has any chance of becoming a commercial reality.

RemyRAD wrote: I'll wait for a true optical/digital microphone.

You mean like one without a conventional diaphragm? Like some laser based thing?

RemyRAD wrote: Frustrated with my equipment and looking for a good sex therapist

PM me with specific issues and I may be able to help. I do sex therapy and(Dead Link Removed)

Respect,

RemyRAD wrote: More flawed, already outdated technology. I'm certainly not impressed. They are not digital microphones! It's just a microphone with a convenient interface and analog-to-digital converter. Really kind of loony!

Just think about all those people that purchased Neve Capricorn digital consoles at $300,000. They are all trying to dump those wonderful digital consoles, since they are only 20 bit and obviously can't be used for quality recording. LOL

Remy, really! That was then, this is now. 28bits of beautifully optimised A/D right behind the capsule is what is called progress. Everyone knows about A/D design now, the learning curve is well advanced.

I'll wait for a true optical/digital microphone.

Its still got to be sampled and word length limited.

Frustrated with my equipment and looking for a good sex therapist
Ms. Remy Ann David

Maybe you should upgrade to some of the new digital gear. :)

Plush wrote: I am really interested to try the 183 digital omni's.
There is one more option for synching as I understand it. You can buy the basic version with AES or SPDIF out and plug these into a console (or external box) with sample rate converters. This will sync the two mics.

This would also be required for the new Schoeps digital mic bodies since they do not offer a DMI box like Neumann.

Cost is fairly high on this stuff. By my calculations a stereo set of Neumann 183 digital mics with the DMI box is circa $US 7000.00. That's quite a lot.

The sound had better be good. One can acquire remote control over their mics for much less than that entry fee--and we reject the built in peak limiter.

There have been a few in studio demonstrations. From what I heard, they sound dang good. I was not aware that they are shipping however. The rep I spoke to had no idea when they would be ready. Anyone have any poop?

DavidSpearritt wrote: Remy, really! That was then, this is now. 28bits of beautifully optimised A/D right behind the capsule is what is called progress. Everyone knows about A/D design now, the learning curve is well advanced.

Despite all the seemingly good points, I remain *spectacularly* disinterested in this technology, and will do so until a standard interface evolves and equipment manufacturers provide direct inputs for these mics. Until then, I see it as a backward step for most people - another box in the set up, requiring special cables and so on, and taking away options. It is a wonderful solution to a problem that really doesn't exist. Gee, if I had a dollar for every time I've been in a situation where I wished for such a microphone over the last 30 years, I'd have, um, er... the piggy bank is silent.

Think about it... Where is the main benefit? Optimised AD conversion and so on? Okay... this is a great idea, in and of itself. With everything self-contained, there's no need for a mic preamp to provide enough gain to reach an industry-standard nominal level of +4dBu and so on. The preamp can be matched perfectly to the capsule, and the converter can be matched perfectly to the preamp. Impedances, noise levels and so can all be optimised. These are all good things...

But, considering all the effort and thought that goes into choosing microphone preamps and AD converters, and knowing the effect those decisions have on the 'flavour' of the recorded sound, do you really want to leave all of that to a single manufacturer (Neumann, Schoeps, whoever) with no impressive history in either mic preamplifer or AD converter design? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't seem to recall hearing *any* microphone manufacturer's name mentioned in reverence (or at all!) in discussions of preamps and converters, in my entire career in audio.

And furthermore, I don't see Prism or Lavry or anyone else cramming complete high quality AD converters onto a board small enough to fit into a microphone body. With such miniaturisation there has to come compromises in terms of noise and SPL handling. Maybe these can be balanced out by the optimisation of putting it all into one circuit, but maybe they can't. One thing I know for sure: if you compare the noise figures for any of DPA's normal size mics against its compact equivalent, noise and SPL handling are the main victims of the miniaturisation and use of surface mount devices. What happens when you try to cram the mic preamp and an AD converter into the same space?

There must be an ideal application for this digital microphone technology... What about simple direct-to-stereo recordings with a pair of microphones, especially where long cable runs are required? Surely this is one of the areas that would benefit the most from digital microphones - at least in the short term. But why bother? I can do this kind of work already with my Nagra V - a single functional box, free from mains power dependency, that's ready to roll in five minutes and allows me to make great recordings with analog microphones. Why would I want to add another box (the digital mic's necessary appendage) to that elegant system and complicate my life? More signal connections to make, and then there's the question of powering the new box. I've doubled or tripled the amount of setting up I have to do, for a marginal sonic benefit (if any). I certainly won't be able to justify charging my clients any more for it...

Not only that, I'll also have to replace my existing analog microphone cables with new cables of appropriate characteristic impedance for the digital signal. That's possible, but I can't see my local concert halls doing that kind of thing with their internal microphone looms. So, I'm going to have to run my own digital cables throughout the venue to take advantage of this technology. More messing around... If I'm not prepared to do that, then I'm going to have to set-up next to the stage, using a short run of my own digital cable, and, oh gosh... without the need for a long cable run, there goes one of the main benefits of a digital microphone system.

What about recordings that require more than a stereo pair? If it's possible to use digital microphones for the entire job, and they all adhere to the same interface standard, then it's a good idea. You can run a snake of the appropriate characteristic impedance and reap the rewards. People recording in concert halls and similar will still have the problem of running entirely new cables, however. Or hoping the venue has an installed run of appropriate cabling.

Multi-microphone recordings that combine analog and digital microphones will require two parallel cabling systems: one for analog mics, one for digital mics. More expense. Having said that, if the output of the digital mics can travel down AES/EBU cable (110 ohm characteristic impedance) then all of the cables and snakes in the rig can be replaced with 110 ohm AES cable. The digital mics will require it, of course, and the analog mic signals will benefit from the (generally) lower capacitance offered from a balanced AES cable.

The more I think about digital microphones, the less interested I become in them. In fact, in the process of writing this post I have moved from being *spectacularly* disinterested to *incredibly amazingly spectacularly* disinterested. The idea is nice in isolation, but not when placed in the big picture of real world recording.

Until my clients insist that I use digital microphones, or until I start losing work to other recordists who are using digital microphones, I see *no big picture benefits* in this technology at all. It's the kind of 'gee whiz' thing that impresses other engineers, but that's about all. There are cheaper, easier and more useful things I can buy that will impress other engineers; like, a really good Swiss army knife, a blue laser pointer, a robotic vacuum cleaner, or an email link to thinkgeek.com's catalogue of gee whizzikins.

So for now I'm consigning digital microphones to the same place that I put DSD, SACD, DVD-A, square eggs and antenna recorders: clever, but impractical and/or unwanted.

Give each microphone an ethernet output and allow me to hook a bunch of them up to my computer via cat5 and a network hub, and *then* you've got something worth wasting bandwidth for (sic).

rfreez wrote: Nobody has taken 192 KHz seriously so far, and I am yet to hear of a true 24+ bit technology that has any chance of becoming a commercial reality.

Converter manufacturer Dan Lavry blew the punchline on the 192k joke with his white paper titled 'Sampling Theory for Digital Audio' (circa 2004). Read it and you'll realise why 192k sampling is actually a backward step. You can download it from his website.

Get hold of a truly good AD and make some 24-bit recordings at 44.1k. You might be surprised at how good it can sound when done well. 96k makes it easier to do the audible bandwidth well, but 192k is going backwards. Anyone who is serious about digital audio has already read Lavry's paper, which is why no-one is taking 192k seriously. It's just a marketing exercise - the manufacturers need new things to sell us or they'll go broke. But if we don't want it, we don't buy it and that gives them an important message: we want 'better' things, not just 'new' things.

Perhaps Neumann will realise this with their digital mics, and give us something that is truly 'better' than what we have now, rather than just 'newer' and less convenient.

192 is mental masterbation. It does sound different. I notice a difference. But, nobody is able to pin what the difference is a result of.

Aside from all of that, we are living in a 128kbps MP3 world. Although there is a new 256AAC offering on iTunes. Most people will not hear a difference, because the average consumer players, haedphone amps, headphones and noisy surroundings are not going to allow it to be heard.

Save the hard drive space, record at 96k.

Ah Simmo, I miss all our arguments (discussions?) on the phone when you are in the mountains.

Despite all the seemingly good points, I remain *spectacularly* disinterested in this technology, and will do so until a standard interface evolves and equipment manufacturers provide direct inputs for these mics.

Actually the digital mixing is about the only thing I am worried about.

Until then, I see it as a backward step for most people - another box in the set up

But you lose the heavy preamp box you are currently lugging around.

Think about it... Where is the main benefit? Optimised AD conversion and so on? Okay... this is a great idea, in and of itself. With everything self-contained, there's no need for a mic preamp to provide enough gain to reach an industry-standard nominal level of +4dBu and so on.

No preamp, means no coloration, no impedance mismatch, no stepped gain controls, no incorrect gain settings, no overloads, no peak limiting, no saturation, and no more reading all the tedious posts on the web about what is the most uncolored preamp to buy. We would have nothing to discuss on audio forums. Bugger.

The preamp can be matched perfectly to the capsule, and the converter can be matched perfectly to the preamp. Impedances, noise levels and so can all be optimised. These are all good things...

They certainly are.

But, considering all the effort and thought that goes into choosing microphone preamps and AD converters, and knowing the effect those decisions have on the 'flavour' of the recorded sound, do you really want to leave all of that to a single manufacturer (Neumann, Schoeps, whoever)

Yes, the capsule manufacturer, YES, I do want them to do it because only they have heard the pristine sound of the capsule itself. I trust them a whole lot more than TASCAM or Mackie or even Prism to make a good sounding rendition of that capsule sound.

with no impressive history in either mic preamplifer or AD converter design?

Its not rocket science.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't seem to recall hearing *any* microphone manufacturer's name mentioned in reverence (or at all!) in discussions of preamps and converters, in my entire career in audio.

Because they have had no need until now. Schoeps and Neumann have designed the world's first 28bit converters. These companies seem to have taken the lead in A/D design all of a sudden, why is that? They just hire brilliant young EE's like any other company. Designing this sort of electronics does not require a company history or record of achievement like car suspensions or aircraft dynamics.

And furthermore, I don't see Prism or Lavry or anyone else cramming complete high quality AD converters onto a board small enough to fit into a microphone body.

They do not have a need to. Simple as that.

With such miniaturisation there has to come compromises in terms of noise and SPL handling. Maybe these can be balanced out by the optimisation of putting it all into one circuit, but maybe they can't.

Leave it to them, it works or it doesn't, I am sure they will sort it out.

One thing I know for sure: if you compare the noise figures for any of DPA's normal size mics against its compact equivalent, noise and SPL handling are the main victims of the miniaturisation and use of surface mount devices. What happens when you try to cram the mic preamp and an AD converter into the same space?

Different problem, Greg. If my reading is correct, this A/D is done on the tiny capsule signal, so no preamp, and no electronics needed to drive the long cables, its all much simpler in those respects.

There must be an ideal application for this digital microphone technology... What about simple direct-to-stereo recordings with a pair of microphones, especially where long cable runs are required? Surely this is one of the areas that would benefit the most from digital microphones - at least in the short term.

I'm glad you see those advantages.

But why bother? I can do this kind of work already with my Nagra V - a single functional box, free from mains power dependency, that's ready to roll in five minutes and allows me to make great recordings with analog microphones.

Because you are troubled by noise floors, and this is something that would not be a problem with digitial mics.

Why would I want to add another box (the digital mic's necessary appendage) to that elegant system and complicate my life?

You eliminate equal or more boxes and the cable connections are simpler. You are tossing off these statements without deep thought.

More signal connections to make, and then there's the question of powering the new box. I've doubled or tripled the amount of setting up I have to do, for a marginal sonic benefit (if any).

The new breed of recorder will have the digital receiver bits built in. You will plug the mic straight into the recorder. Also the prospect of wireless data transmission will become much easier. C'mon Greg these are real exciting developments,

Not only that, I'll also have to replace my existing analog microphone cables with new cables of appropriate characteristic impedance for the digital signal.

I have been using AES/EBU cable for all my analog mic leads for some time now. :)

That's possible, but I can't see my local concert halls doing that kind of thing with their internal microphone looms. So, I'm going to have to run my own digital cables throughout the venue to take advantage of this technology. More messing around... If I'm not prepared to do that, then I'm going to have to set-up next to the stage, using a short run of my own digital cable, and, oh gosh... without the need for a long cable run, there goes one of the main benefits of a digital microphone system.

Wireless!

What about recordings that require more than a stereo pair? If it's possible to use digital microphones for the entire job, and they all adhere to the same interface standard, then it's a good idea. You can run a snake of the appropriate characteristic impedance and reap the rewards. People recording in concert halls and similar will still have the problem of running entirely new cables, however. Or hoping the venue has an installed run of appropriate cabling.

Wireless!

Multi-microphone recordings that combine analog and digital microphones will require two parallel cabling systems: one for analog mics, one for digital mics. More expense. Having said that, if the output of the digital mics can travel down AES/EBU cable (110 ohm characteristic impedance) then all of the cables and snakes in the rig can be replaced with 110 ohm AES cable. The digital mics will require it, of course, and the analog mic signals will benefit from the (generally) lower capacitance offered from a balanced AES cable.

You got it. Great isn't it.

The more I think about digital microphones, the less interested I become in them. In fact, in the process of writing this post I have moved from being *spectacularly* disinterested to *incredibly amazingly spectacularly* disinterested. The idea is nice in isolation, but not when placed in the big picture of real world recording.

Are you sick of the mountains, Greg? Come back to Australia and come and have a coffee in civilization. I can describe so more of the benefits of digital mics.

So for now I'm consigning digital microphones to the same place that I put DSD, SACD, DVD-A, square eggs and antenna recorders: clever, but impractical and/or unwanted.

They are here to stay and will shake up the remote recording scene a whole lot more than DSD/SACD etc ever did.

Give each microphone an ethernet output and allow me to hook a bunch of them up to my computer via cat5 and a network hub, and *then* you've got something worth wasting bandwidth for.

At last you see it. Well done.

DavidSpearritt wrote: No preamp, means no coloration, no impedance mismatch, no stepped gain controls, no incorrect gain settings, no overloads, no peak limiting, no saturation, and no more reading all the tedious posts on the web about what is the most uncolored preamp to buy. We would have nothing to discuss on audio forums. Bugger.

There would be plenty to discuss....like why recordings, for some reason, don't sound as good as they used to?

Zilla wrote: There would be plenty to discuss....like why recordings, for
some reason, don't sound as good as they used to?

What a cynic you are Scott, but maybe there will be some of this for awhile. Bit like the vintage mic brigade now.

0VU wrote: As mentioned above, JW works as tech manager for Sennheiser UK (Neumann UK distributors) but I agree with Gunnar as to John's honesty.

His honesty and integrity are not in question, but we do have to keep one reality in mind. As an employee of Sennheiser UK, who are also the UK's Neumann distributors, it is highly likely that he paid *far* less for those microphones than you or I would pay; possibly 40% or more below RRP. They would therefore represent far less of an investment for him than they would be for you or I, and therefore less of a risk AND a seemingly better value-for-money...

DavidSpearritt wrote: Ah Simmo, I miss all our arguments (discussions?) on the phone when you are in the mountains.

Actually, I'm in Sydney at the moment, but my mobile is cut-off because I lapsed in payments. I'm a bad man, and so I've been ex-communicated from Western civilisation.

But you lose the heavy preamp box you are currently lugging around.

Not me! I'm just carrying a Nagra. Unless *that* is the heavy box you are referring to. It's not too heavy, but it could always be lighter.

To be honest, if my Nagra had direct inputs and processing for the outputs of two of those digital Neumanns, I'd probably be right behind JW in the list of owners. But not if I've got to add another box and double the connections...

Certainly for the technology to succeed, Neumann has to establish their method as a standard which other manufacturers will adopt and integrate into their systems. They did it years ago with +48V DC phantom power, maybe they can do it again?

DavidSpearritt wrote: No preamp, means no coloration, no impedance mismatch, no stepped gain controls... SNIP! We would have nothing to discuss on audio forums. Bugger.

I'm sure we'd find something to bicker about. Like, what's the best digital microphone under $100? Or, how to use our 'vintage' Beyer MCD100 digital microphones, which were presented to the world at the Copenhagen AES convention in 1996. One decade ago. (Whatever happened to *that* mic?)

DavidSpearritt wrote: Yes, the capsule manufacturer, YES, I do want them to do it because only they have heard the pristine sound of the capsule itself. I trust them a whole lot more than TASCAM or Mackie or even Prism to make a good sounding rendition of that capsule sound.

And what if you don't like that sound when you finally hear it in its pristine form?!?!

DavidSpearritt wrote: You are tossing off these statements without deep thought.

With all due respect, if you go back over my discourse you'll see that I certainly wasn't tossing off statements without deep thought. At the point you have commented on, I was specifically referring to adding a Neumann digital microphone to my 'elegant' Nagra V system, and there is absolutely no way that can be done without adding an extra box. How deep do I have to think? Wet toes or diving bell?!?!

In the long run you are correct, of course. But the long run assumes I upgrade to a newer recording device that supports direct input from these digital microphones. Maybe that device is just around the corner? Maybe that's what Beyer thought back in 1996?

Maybe Neumann are smarter and are already planning the recording device. Why not? That would be cool. A complete system from Neumann...

The idea has merit; the recording device is merely that - a recording device! A large chunk of storage with an appropriate digital input, an LCD and a DA converter for monitoring. Nice. :)

DavidSpearritt wrote: The new breed of recorder will have the digital receiver bits built in. You will plug the mic straight into the recorder. Also the prospect of wireless data transmission will become much easier. C'mon Greg these are real exciting developments

The prospect of a wireless digital link is very exciting, for sure, assuming the regulatory bodies allow us sufficient bandwidth and power in a suitable airspace. I would gladly say goodbye to cables, even if it meant putting new batteries into the mics at the start of each job.

DavidSpearritt wrote: Are you sick of the mountains, Greg? Come back to Australia and come and have a coffee in civilization. I can describe so more of the benefits of digital mics.

I'm not sick of the mountains, I'm pining for them! I've only been back for a month and already I'm venting spleen in 5.1. (And I miss my beautiful Nepali girlfriend.)

DavidSpearritt wrote: They are here to stay and will shake up the remote recording scene a whole lot more than DSD/SACD etc ever did.

Here to stay? Can we please make a bet on that? Just a small one, like $100, because it wouldn't surprise me if they did succeed. The optimist in me wants them to succeed, but the pragmatist says they won't succeed in their current format. So, if they are making significant progress in the next three years, I'll give you $100. If they are canned by Neumann due to phenomenal lack of interest, you give me $100.

What say you?

As for shaking up the remote recording scene a whole lot more than DSD/SACD etc. ever did, *that* wouldn't be hard to achieve! How about giving those mics a decent challenge?

Speaking of DSD et al, imagine if a version of these digital microphones was available that output DSD. Hmmm....

As I need a really top notch pair of omnis, I am putting off buying a pair of 4006TL's till I hear these digital things for myself. My good mate Kostas Metaxas says that they sound like dung from sample recordings he's heard, but Kostas is very fussy, his normal gear is M150's into an SM8. :)

I will listen to them soon and report. I think the capsule sound will be what I want. :)

Still, mixing them together is huge unknown.

Simmosonic wrote: Or, how to use our 'vintage' Beyer MCD100 digital microphones, which were presented to the world at the Copenhagen AES convention in 1996. One decade ago. (Whatever happened to *that* mic?)

Undoubtedly, its gone the way of ALL early digital gear, into the waste bin, and for sonic reasons we all know about. Digital has moved on since then. No question Beyer are/were innovators, though.

PS. Michael Bishop is a big fan of the Neumann D, for sound quality.

This is a fantastic topic! I am LOVING it.

In fact, I've been trying to figure out...If I sold 4 pairs of Schoeps, 2 Millennia HV3D-8s and a couple Gefells, a Lynx Aurora 8 and added $5k to it...could I get enough mics and interfaces to go around.

Then...I wake up and realize that I would still want to work with other mics...my LDCs, my ribbons, etc. I would still need a good pre and a good converter for those instances.

If I only had to record one or two ensemble types, I wouldn't think twice. I'd run out and buy enough to record Mahler 2 today!

The reality is, this setup wouldn't work for me any time in the near future - as much as I'd like it to.

DavidSpearritt wrote: PS. Michael Bishop is a big fan of the Neumann D, for sound quality.

I know where you're going with that one David...but I gotta tell you - where your pet peeve is petty gear sluttery, mine is the reference to other engineers' preferences. I know MB likes them (as I've read on their website and other forums - otherwise, I'm clearly ignorant as to Telarc's SOPs, etc.) and I know Tony Faulkner has his methods and preferences...but honestly, I could care less.

The reality is, you or I could record the groups that they do and get very usable, even sellable (perhaps even award-winning) results seeing as how a good performer plus a good venue is at least 2/3s of the recording equation - I would rank engineer know-how as 30% of the remaining and equipment as the final 3.4%.

Besides, you lower your own esteem by making statements like that. Personally, from what little I know of and have heard of your work, I respect you more than most "famous" engineers as your feet are on the ground working everyday - not resting on your laurels. Making statements like "Engineer X likes them..." puts you on lower stature than they...

Regards,

J

I posted that comment about MB in response to the previous comments about not liking the naked capsule sound. MB has listened to some of the best mics available and "benchmarked" them for projects and chosen the Neumann D, so the naked capsule sound can't be that bad.

Otherwise I take and agree with your points.

Completely understood.

Cheers!

Cucco wrote: Then...I wake up and realize that I would still want to work with other mics...my LDCs, my ribbons, etc. I would still need a good pre and a good converter for those instances.

This is one of the things I was discussing in my previous anti-digital microphone rant. Unless every microphone you want to work with is digital, you are going to have to combine the analog and digital microphone systems; I reckon that's too much complexity and hassle for what amounts to very, very little perceived benefit in the end result.

Others in this thread have made some compelling arguments for the use of digital microphones, but most of those arguments are from an "imagine what it will be like when the world converts to digital microphones" perspective. That's a fine perspective, and one I'd like to see. I think if we ever get to that stage, we'll look back at our analog microphone systems, with all their cabling and preamps and converters and so on, in the same way we look back at editing analog tape... (Or maybe not! Perhaps we'll be saying, "Gee, I miss being able to mix and match microphones, preamps and AD converters to get the sound I wanted"...)

But I seriously doubt we will ever get to a point where the world has converted to digital microphones, because no-one will want to go through the necessary transition period where we have to combine digital microphone technologies with analog microphone technologies. Nor will we want to abandon our much-loved analog favourites.

Unlike comparing a DAW to editing analog tape, digital microphone technology doesn't offer any *significant* improvement over our existing analog microphone technology. In that respect, digital microphone technology is in the same boat as DSD, SACD and DVD-A. They are all measurably better, but they were not *significantly* better than our existing PCM and CD formats to warrant the change.

As with DSD, SACD and DVD-A, the entry cost of digital microphone technology for us, as program creators, is too high to risk. And furthermore, as consumers, we have all been burnt once or twice before after being sucked into buying 'the next big thing'. So these days we are more cautious; whenever some new technology is introduced, we are no longer early adopters. Instead, the only thing we adopt is a 'wait and see' attitude. That is why DSD, SACD and DVD-A are dead as dodos, and it is also why digital microphone technology will fail.

In order for digital microphone technology to get wide acceptance, we have to start buying into it now, and that's something most of us are not in a hurry to do. It's too expensive, and the options are too limited. So, we'll sit on our wallets and wait, hedging our bets that either a) the technology will become widespread and therefore safe to invest in, or b) the technology will go away and stop teasing us.

IMHO, the digital microphone 'revolution' will come and go, and once again the manufacturers will learn a nasty but important lesson: if it doesn't make a *significant* difference, don't bother foisting it upon us. Neumann, Schoeps et al would do well to focus their efforts on improvements that really *do* make a difference for all concerned; like, finding a way to make their excellent mics at significantly lower cost, so we can squeeze the plethora of crap sounding budget microphones out of the market once and for all. THAT would truly be a revolution in microphone technology!

Getting back to digital microphone technology, let's consider the situation. Beyerdynamic introduced the world's first digital microphone over a decade ago. Some say it failed because the digital technology at the time was not good enough and so it sounded bad. That's a good rationale, but I think it failed in most people's assessment before they even bothered listening to it. It was too expensive, and required too many other bits and pieces in order for it to play ball with the existing technologies at the time. Either way, it failed - period.

Fast forward to this thread and we are talking about Neumann's KM183D. This is not a new technology, not even for Neumann. It is part of their Solution D system, which was announced at least two (maybe three or more) years ago. So, it's been around for a while now. And yet, despite all of its supposed benefits, in two pages of this thread we see only two people's names listed as being users of it. One works for the UK importer for Neumann and certainly did not have to pay full price for his system, and the other works for a successful classical music label with a reputation for sound quality and deep enough pockets to risk such a purchase.

What does that tell you?

Cucco wrote: If I only had to record one or two ensemble types, I wouldn't think twice. I'd run out and buy enough to record Mahler 2 today!

The reality is, this setup wouldn't work for me any time in the near future - as much as I'd like it to.

If Schoeps made a digital version of their CCM4/CCM8 MS pair that fitted into a Rycote and gave me a direct AES output (witout the extra box), I'd be keen to buy it. I could plug it straight into my Nagra's AES input and get on with my field recordings. But not if I have to string another box into the signal path - isn't digital technology supposed to make things smaller, lighter, faster and simpler? The existing digital microphone technology is making things larger, heavier, slower and more complex!

I could see a great application for digital microphone technology in stereo microphones, if they can get all the technology built into the microphone and it outputs a stereo AES signal on a single 3-pin XLR. That would be very cool, but you'd have to lock your digital recorder to the mic's AES signal.

Simmosonic wrote: [quote=Cucco]If I only had to record one or two ensemble types, I wouldn't think twice. I'd run out and buy enough to record Mahler 2 today!

The reality is, this setup wouldn't work for me any time in the near future - as much as I'd like it to.

If Schoeps made a digital version of their CCM4/CCM8 MS pair that fitted into a Rycote and gave me a direct AES output (witout the extra box), I'd be keen to buy it.

I'd even be willing to pony up if the only box required was an AES combiner (putting each mic signal onto its own leg of a stereo AES channel)

Simmo wrote:
I could see a great application for digital microphone technology in stereo microphones, if they can get all the technology built into the microphone and it outputs a stereo AES signal on a single 3-pin XLR. That would be very cool, but you'd have to lock your digital recorder to the mic's AES signal.

Could you lock it to the AES signal in the Nagra?

Another Nagrist replies:

Who said I would pay to try the new Neumann set-up? We will not pay to try it or use it.

There is one thing that you guys are missing in the analysis of the advantages of the new digital system. That is that dynamic range is expanded downward with the so called "28 bit" converter and lack of noise.

This means that low level detail should, in theory, be able to be retrieved like never before.

This benefit is the main reason to use the new set-up.

Maybe I'm not understanding something...but -

If the mic needs no preamp, then any gain must be applied at the digital stage, which means you're still bringing up the noise floor, just digital noise instead of analog noise.

In addition, going from the 28 bit converter to the 24 bit inputs on most systems, would you not need to dither - introducing yet another source of noise?

Honestly, I rarely record in any halls which challenge the noise floor of my equipment. In most cases, I'm lucky to get a -65 to -70 dBfs noise floor from the hall anyway (and my mics and preamps are at least that quiet.)

Cucco wrote: Could you lock it to the AES signal in the Nagra?

Not if it was a stereo mic with a single AES output, as I described. Locking to an external source would mean adding an input to the microphone (either AES or dedicated word clock) and then we're running two cables and the elegance is not there any more...

...and running AES signals via long cables is more detrimental than long analog cables. Have tried, es no bueno.

Plush wrote: Who said I would pay to try the new Neumann set-up? We will not pay to try it or use it.

Please elaborate... Who *did* say that?

Plush wrote: There is one thing that you guys are missing in the analysis of the advantages of the new digital system. That is that dynamic range is expanded downward with the so called "28 bit" converter and lack of noise.

This means that low level detail should, in theory, be able to be retrieved like never before.

This benefit is the main reason to use the new set-up.

This is a good point.

However, unless I'm misinterpreting the specs and comparing apples to oranges, I see no practical benefit at all. The noise of the KM183d shows no improvement over the KM183; both are rated at 13dB A. The signal-to-noise ratios appear to be the same, too (KM183D = 70dB CCIR4, KM183 = 70dB CCIR 468-3), although I am not sure of the differences between those two CCIR specs, and perhaps that's where the difference can be found. The only apparent difference might be a 5dB *decrease* in maximum SPL for the KM183d, but it is hard to directly compare that figure because, by necessity, one is quoted at 0dB FS (KM183d) and the other at 0.5% THD (KM183).

Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting the specs (it's highly likely, especially those differing CCIR figures), but on the surface I cannot see any benefit here at all. The self-noise is the same, the signal-to-noise ratio appears to be the same, and the digital version possibly has less SPL capability. Are these digital microphones really a step forward?

Specs aside... As I understand it, the bulk of the noise from a microphone is due to the motion of air particles against the diaphragm; it doesn't matter whether that diaphragm goes into an analog input circuit or the front end of a 28-bit AD converter - *that* noise is already there. The KM183d uses the same diaphragm as the KM183, so it has the same noise burying the same amount of low level detail, but somehow encoding it beautifully into a 28-bit converter. So we get an extra 4 bits, allowing us to encode that noise accurately down to -168dB FS (or thereabouts). Pardon my tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, but with that amount of low level detail I ought to be able to hear each individual air particle approaching, colliding with the capsule, and bouncing away again. Cool!

Whatever theoretical advantage the digital microphone concept has is not immediately apparent in the specifications of the current models - unless I'm misinterpreting the specs, in which case can someone please correct me....

Well all dat dat you done talked about, we gonna find out.
We jus gonna find it out. I'm sort of a smiling skeptic.

Don't dismiss it out of hand, however.
Dynamic range should be improved certainly. Self noise has nothing to do with it. Performance should be that of a true 21-22 bit converter.

Maybe they done cheaped out, maybe they done done it right. We a gonna find out.

Great...so Plushy has turned into JarJar Binks...
Are you planning on getting a pair?

Simmo -

Can the Nagra generate clock over AES and assign it to one leg? Wouldn't that help in the above hypothetic scenario?

Also, the Brownian noise you refer to is one of the components of microphone noise which increases almost exponentially with a decrease in diaphragm size, but it certainly isn't the main factor in microphone self-noise. Active electronics play at least as much of a role. However, in either case, you are right...the noise IS still there and you ARE still amplifying it along with the signal.

Plush aka JarJar Binks wrote: Don't dismiss it out of hand, however.

With the amount of time I've spent posting all this anti-digital-microphone crap here, it must be obvious that I'm not dismissing it out of hand...

The technology is of great interest to me, especially from a noise point of view. One of the things I have become increasingly interested in lately is recording nature sounds, in particular, the dusk and dawn sounds of jungles and rainforests. This requires very quiet microphones, and my preference for this type of work is omnis, so the KM183d is/was of great interest to me, and it was happily coincidental that this thread appeared (although it appears I have highjacked it).

By putting all this anti-digital-microphone stuff here, I'm looking for compelling arguments to support the technology. So far, all the arguments for it are based on theoretical notions, mathematical predictions and rosy-eyed futuristic visions. What I'm *not* seeing are *significant* improved specifications in the real-world products. I'm hoping I am missing something, and I'm hoping someone much smarter than me (they won't have to be a genius) is going to pop up any moment now and convince me that the KM183d is going to offer a *significant* advantage over the analog technology.

By 'significant', I mean, 6dB or so less noise, for example - that would be worthwhile. Comparing the KM183d's specs to the KM183's specs is a little underwhelming, and I can buy a selection of very nice analog microphones that outperform the analog KM183 for the entry price of the Neumann system.

Oh... here's something I did not mention earlier when comparing the specs of the KM183 digital to the KM183 analog: the digital version does not have any more noise added downstream from preamps, converters, etc.

How silly of me. :oops:

Cucco wrote: Can the Nagra generate clock over AES and assign it to one leg? Wouldn't that help in the above hypothetic scenario?

Not that I'm aware of...

My hypothetical scenario is becoming a bit of a non-issue at the moment. I've been re-visiting the prices I can find for the Solution D gear and it is completely unaffordable for now. However, if I had no equipment at all and was about to purchase a complete system, the Solution D would make more sense. I could buy a much cheaper recorder than the Nagra V because it would only need an appropriate digital input; it wouldn't need good preamps or AD converters.

But for now, it's too complex, too expensive, and too risky.

I think the smartest thing Neumann could do now is release an appropriate recorder to use with the system, and get all those bits and pieces into one box while also removing the need for the laptop but maintaining remote control of microphone parameters. Then it really would be a good solution, and it really would have a chance of succeeding. At the moment there are so many add-ons required to make it work that it reminds me of the Chinese drive-through scene in 'Dude, where's my car?' (...and then? ...and then? ...and then? ...and then? ...and then?).

Cucco wrote: Also, the Brownian noise you refer to is one of the components of microphone noise which increases almost exponentially with a decrease in diaphragm size, but it certainly isn't the main factor in microphone self-noise.

Thank you for that correction.

"O Taste and See"

would be my motto.

Simmosonic's jungle sounds are fully adequately handled by the Nig-Nog and his current mics.

The comparison between the regular mics and the digital mics will eventually be done here.

In that way I can maintain my goal of being a recording scientist, not a guesser. (or a hand wringer)

Please let us know as soon as possible what your findings are.

Though I come off as being against the digital mic revolution, I am anything but.

I am VERY excited at the prospect of where this technology might go and what I may be able to gain (or lose in the way of hardware) from it! To be honest, if it even sounds as good as current technologies, I will be pleased so long as I can afford to revamp my entire set up.

In fact, I just did the math.

I could afford an initial investment of $17,250, but that would severely limit my recording capabilities to little more than the digital mics in general.

I'm afraid, as I understand their pricing scheme, this would afford me 6 to 7 channels of recording...

I wish they had some kind of say 8 channel interface which was more affordable and you could simply purchase whatever mics you need to go along with that!

Plush wrote: Simmosonic's jungle sounds are fully adequately handled by the Nig-Nog and his current mics.

Ouch? At first I read that as an insult, and here's why:

In Australia in the early '70s we used to get a sitcom from Britain called 'Love Thy Neighbour'. The main character, a white guy called Eddie, used to call his black neighbour, Bill, a "Nig-Nog", which was obviously derived from the word 'nigger'. Eddie also called Bill a 'sambo', a 'jungle bunny', a 'chocolate drop' and a 'darkie'...

That is the only context in which I've heard the word 'Nig-Nog'. I'm assuming you never got that show in the USA, and that your use of 'Nig-Nog' refers to the Nagra. But your comment works just as well with the other meaning, too.

Because this is the *World* Wide Web, not just the *USA* Wide Web, I think it's important to clarify that. Otherwise, combining "Nig-Nog" with your earlier JarJar Binks/Afro-American slave talk post paints an unfortunate picture.

[By the way, my jungle sounds are not fully adequately handled by my current mics, which is why I'm interested in the digital mics and their noise. But I've already said that a post or two ago... :roll: ]