Cucco wrote: 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!

According to their website, an 8-channel version of the DMI-2 is under development. Go here:

http://www.Neumann.com/?lang=en&id=current_microphones&cid=d01_description

...and scroll down to the bottom, under the heading "The DMI-2 Digital Microphone Interface".

I would assume this will be more affordable per channel than the DMI-2. Build an 8-track hard disk recorder into the same box and it's a real digital solution.

Well that's definitely positive news!

Hmmm...I wonder if $17K+ would get me:
8 channels and
4 omni mics,
2 cardioid mics
2 fig 8 mics.

I would be content with that as an initial setup and be willing to add later!

Just think -
A laptop and a 1u box, 8 mics and a handful of stands....
I'm in!

Does any one here have any contacts within Neumann?

I'd love it if a company rep would come weigh in on this discussion!

Cucco wrote: Hmmm...I wonder if $17K+ would get me:
8 channels and
4 omni mics,
2 cardioid mics
2 fig 8 mics.

Strewth! In Australia, the Neumann importer will sell you a pair of D01s and a DMI-2 as a stereo kit for $24,349 AUD, which is about $19,860 US. They don't have prices for the KM series on their website...

Ha!

There goes the VALUE right out the window! Unless the diaphragms are made from the stretched flesh of a unicorn's genitalia, I hardly see the value in that.

Although - the SDC varieties of the digital series are far less expensive than the D01s. In truth, I rarely have use for LDC mics anyway.

As I understand it, the SDC mics would run around $5K a pair (USD) without the DMI-2. Perhaps their pricing scheme on the DMI-2 will be a tad more reasonable than that of the D01/DMI-2 combo.

For SimmoSonic:

My dialect talk in my other post reflects speech of southern whites, not some slave talk. The term, "nig-nog" is the official name of a Nagra tape recorder assigned by the Swiss factory.

I am ignorant of the television show you spoke of where they used the term Nog-Nog.

I am perfectly happy with very old mics and tube mics myself.
My burgeoning interest in the new Neumann digital offering is merely because of curiosity.

I agree that the cost is ridiculous.

Simmosonic wrote: 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.

Well it is difficult to describe something that none of us have heard in our normal conditions. My "speculation" is based on the design improvements of the whole format which are compelling and already listed in detail towards to top of this thread. Who would go back to an analog recorder nowadays. True the Stellavox SM8 might still be the best sounding recorder on the planet but who is going to substitute their digital gear for that. Certainly not me, I want to get recordings done.

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.

Although the self noise figures might be the same, with the analog version, you will not hear the self noise floor, with the digital version you will, because there is no more noise added. The Nagra preamps in my NV are beautiful sonically but they are not as quiet as my AMEK, so I do not hear the self noise of my mics when directly connected to the NV. If I could plug two KM183d's into the AES input I would hear the self noise of the capsule, as so much analog electronics in between the capsule noise and the encoded bits are GONE!

Forget specs, read reviews and experience of others. The review posted by the Sennheiser gentleman drew particular attention to the complete lack of noise, this is much more useful than specs. He was comparing with the MKH-20, a formidable foe in the self noise stakes.

Expense is significant, but its still a boutique product, when it becomes the norm, which I have no doubt it will, the price will be the same.

Give the future a chance. As Plush says, wait and see. I want a demo of these things because they offer so much, sonically and ergonomically to the recording process. If they sound like crap then so be it, but that Sennheiser review is hard to ignore or dismiss as marketing BS.

Just noticed this comment after the review.

Quote TImellis:
Would you predict a time when digital microphones become the norm?

They'll never become the norm, but they will become a lot more common and even mainstream -- particularly in classical and serious music recording circles.

But there will always be those who want to stay with analog because they like the limitations of that technology. They like the distortions, and they like the 'black art' of choosing mic preamps and A-D converters to create a particular sonic character. You can't do that with digital mics, and especially not with mics as good as Neumann's Solution D series.

John is quite right, the KM-D mics are stunning in every way, and I am sorely tempted to buy a pair myself but can't really justify it at present.

Hugh

It seems they will not become the norm. :( But the interesting thing here is the point about choosing all the flavour in analog gear etc. Love those distortions particularly.

As we all know, most of the sound of classical recordings comes from great halls and great mic positions and techniques, not from second order flavourings from distortions and other mismatched components. :twisted:

Cucco wrote: There goes the VALUE right out the window!

Plush wrote: I agree that the cost is ridiculous.

Please bear in mind that these are the prices listed on the Australian importer's website, in Australian dollars, and are for the more expensive D01 microphone, as I pointed out earlier:

http://www.syntec.com.au/home.php?cat=453

The Australian importer is known locally for their rather high RRPs.

DavidSpearritt wrote: Who would go back to an analog recorder nowadays.

I doubt the noise difference between a KM183 and KM183d will be as dramatically apparent as that between GP9 at 510nWb and a good 24/96 recorder. Not to mention all the other features and benefits that digital technology offered in terms of edting, cloning, storage, cost of media and so on. The move to digital was a no-brainer!

In comparison, the digital mic offers very little that is new or expands our capabilities as sound engineers - just improved specs. I would say that most engineers are happy with the existing specs, so there is no need to rush en masse to digital mics.

If I could plug two KM183d's into the AES input I would hear the self noise of the capsule, as so much analog electronics in between the capsule noise and the encoded bits are GONE!

Hence my initial interest in the technology!

Forget specs, read reviews and experience of others. The review posted by the Sennheiser gentleman drew particular attention to the complete lack of noise, this is much more useful than specs. He was comparing with the MKH-20, a formidable foe in the self noise stakes.

This is fair enough on the surface. But, assuming you are talking about JW, we have to remember that he works for Sennheiser's UK importer. We also have to remember that Sennheiser own Neumann, and when they did the take-over the agencies for Neumann all around the world were moved to the agencies for Sennheiser. And we also have to remember that he almost certainly didn't pay full price for the mics. His credibility is not in question, but his circumstances are!

As a person who has spent many years editing magazine reviews of audio equipment, I simply could not allow such a review to be published - regardless of the writer's credibility. Our more informed magazine readers would have a field day with such a thing. And the importers of competing brands would all demand a chance to write their own reviews of their own products and have them published; or else cancel their advertising contracts!

When you have a vested interest in a product, it is *always* going to temper your opinion of it. That is just human nature...

I am not surprised that his opinion is given so much weight here, though. Firstly, he really does know what he's talking about; secondly, he is one of the *very few people* who is able to comment on these mics from a user's point of view. It is also cool that he compared them against the MKH20, another brand he has a vested in. At least he kept things 'in house'!

Give the future a chance.

Why? What does that chance involve? It involves people going out and buying this stuff in its current form and at its current prices.

Mr Spearritt... Are you or anyone else on this list going to give it that chance? Are you going to put your money behind it now or in the near future? Because if you don't, this technology is going to shrivel up and die.

It is already at least two years old for Neumann. What time frame have Sennheiser's accountants given this technology before it is considered unprofitable and scrapped?

I got involved in this topic because I'm looking for a very quiet pair of omnis. The KM183d's were *very* appealing to me. So, I approached them with an open mind, seeing how they could fit into my system. Sadly, I remain unimpressed overall. :(

I'm happy to give the technology a chance, but not at *my* expense. And I think it is important to air these doubts in some kind of forum so that others don't blindly rush out and buy it either. Solution D is not ready yet, imho. I'll wait for Solution E, F, G or H, but I doubt it will happen.

Early adopters often get their fingers burnt. They are the sacrificial lambs on the alter of new technologies. Personally, I'm sick and tired of finding myself and others in that situation; spending huge money so a manufacturer can find out of an idea or technology actually has legs. If I can prevent a handful of people from wasting a lot of money on some new and exciting but ultimately unviable technology, then I feel a responsibility to do that. I'm trying to give *their* future a chance...

DavidSpearritt wrote: Just noticed this comment after the review. SNIP! It seems they will not become the norm. :(

Oh, well isn't that grand!

That's precisely what I've been saying, and defending, throughout this thread. Apparently someone else had to say it before it got taken seriously.

This is no longer a forum for helpful discussion and healthy debate; it is a place where everyone's opinion is welcome provided it is the same as everyone elses' opinion; it is a place for dreamers and followers who don't want their little bubbles burst.

I'm out of here.

I doubt the noise difference between a KM183 and KM183d will be as dramatically apparent as that between GP9 at 510nWb and a good 24/96 recorder. Not to mention all the other features and benefits that digital technology offered in terms of edting, cloning, storage, cost of media and so on. The move to digital was a no-brainer!

You misinterpreted my point, it was not the noise difference between analog and digital recorders but all the ergonomic differences that make them (digital) compelling and now mainstream even despite a reported small inferior difference in sound which is obviously negligible. I suspect the same thing will happen with these mics.

Mr Spearritt... Are you or anyone else on this list going to give it that chance? Are you going to put your money behind it now or in the near future?

Perhaps, if the price comes down. As I said I need a top pair of omnis and these would be in the running. A pair of M150's is $20,000 AUD RRP as well. A pair of TLM50's is $16,000 AUD. Then I need preamps, cables etc. So you see, the differences are not that great, if the sound is there.

Oh, well isn't that grand!

That's precisely what I've been saying, and defending, throughout this thread. Apparently someone else had to say it before it got taken seriously.

No again I was being sarcastic and now you are being very sensitive and missing the humour. I had the grumpy face as a clue.

This is no longer a forum for helpful discussion and healthy debate; it is a place where everyone's opinion is welcome provided it is the same as everyone elses' opinion; it is a place for dreamers and followers who don't want their little bubbles burst.

I'm out of here.

Simmo, you are obviously having a bad day. Go outside for awhile and leave us dreamers dream about these mics. I think this thread has been very useful.

Thank you everybody for this extremely interesting and - at least in my view, positively - controversal thread!
Regards
Hermann Platzer

Cucco wrote: 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.

I expect gain changes to be done without quality change in the digital domain. The computations (multiplication) wont add any new noise to what's already there. The only equipment noise, is what's in the microphone. In the analog chain there is noise from the mic and also from the pre, varying with gain, and AD.

Cucco wrote: 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.)

28 bits of dynamic range is ridiculously much and I suppose dither only comes into play when the 28th bit would become exposed in the (dynamically) audible range of the end product. That would be for very quiet sounds indeed. Current analog systems max out around 110-120dB anyway, quite some ways from 24bits.

best regards
Lars

This post has indeed generated alot of replies. Unfortunately very few people seem to have actually used the mics. Judging a mic on its specs only goes so far. As someone who is only starting I am not heavily invested in analog technology, and thus going digital may not be a problem. Does anyone know where I could audition these mics in the US?

Simmosonic wrote: I'm out of here.

...and I'm back again.

While consuming a calming tankful of chamomile tea yesterday, I reviewed this entire thread and realised that there is still a lot of vagueness and misconceptions about the digital microphone system. Having thrown up all the doubts I can muster, I thought I may as well use my genius (kidding!) for good instead of evil and do something constructive by detailing what I've been able to find out about the system itself.

So, here's what I've been able to piece together from Neumann's website, on-line reviews, AES stuff, and so on. It's just a general overview. As usual, if anyone out there knows better, please correct me when/if I'm wrong...

The heart of the digital microphone system is actually the AES 42 interface/protocol standard, which is not to be confused with the AES/EBU stereo digital interface that we know and love. AES42 is an entirely different animal designed specifically for digital microphones. It uses a bidirectional data flow that works on a 3-pin XLR system, and, in addition to carrying the digita audio data from the microphone, it provides everything needed to operate a single microphone - including DPP (Digital Phantom Power). All on a single cable, nice...

As far as I can ascertain, the AES42 data can travel on a normal balanced microphone cable for distances up to 100m. Over that, a cable of appropriate characteristic impedance is required.

The microphone itself is an ingeniuous idea. It combines the entire traditional analog signal path (from capsule to AD converter) into a digital package small enough to fit into the microphone body itself. To do this means it must have a DSP to provide things such as high pass filtering, limiting, gain, choice of polar response (if an option on the microphone, such as Neumann's D-01) and so on that would normally be found in the analog signal path. All of these parameters are controlled remotely via AES42.

To allow control of the microphone and to convert the AES42 audio data into something useful, we need an appropriate interface. Because the microphone conforms to the AES42 standard, it can be plugged into any device that supports the AES42 interface. Those products are thin on the ground at the moment, but the point is that AES42 is a standard and so (unlike Digidesign et al), Neumann are not trying to paint you into a proprietary corner. I guess they are hoping that digital audio manufacturers will get on board and start including AES42 interfaces in their equipment, allowing it to remotely control the microphone. In essence, the 02R or MBox of the near future would have an AES42 XLR input on every channel, alongside or instead of an analog XLR microphone input, and the front end of the device's channel strip would essentially be the control software operating the microphone. But it's not available yet...

This is where Neumann's DMI-2 comes into the picture (DMI-2 presumably stands for 'Digital Microphone Interface - 2 channels'). It is an interface that converts the incoming audio data from the microphone into an AES/EBU output, and also allows a personal computer running Neumann's control software to interface with the microphone and control the parameters of the signal path (gain, high pass filter, etc.). In many ways, the DMI-2 can be seen as an interim product, necessary to make the transition from analog mics to digital mics, but no longer necessary when/if equipment manufacturers get behind the AES42 standard and start providing AES42 inputs on their products. (I suspect this is the reason why the DMI-2 is so simple - it offers no control of the microphones at all, you still must use a personal computer for that purpose. But one day you may not need the DMI-2 at all...)

So, the DMI-2 provides an interface for audio data, from AES42 to AES/EBU, and it also provides an interface to control the microphone, from USB to AES42 (via RS485). It also provides word clock in and out for synchronisation. Multiple units can be cascaded together for more channels, and Neumann are currently working on an eight channel version.

Those are the bones of the system. Obviously, if you need to use a personal computer to control the system, you may as well be recording onto it as well - why not?

So, a truly useful, reasonably simple, and impressively clean stereo recording rig would contain the following:

2 x digital microphones
1 x DMI-2
1 x personal computer/DAW with interface to accept digital audio via AES (an AES/SPDIF adapter could be used here).

Looking at the DMI-2, it appears each AES42 input signal is output on its own AES socket. That would be a bummer because you'd either need two AES/EBU input sockets on your PC's audio interface, or some other way of combining them into a single AES/EBU stereo signal; I'm hoping the DMI-2 is able to do this combining...

Neumann's remote control software does not take over the PC, so it can happily run alongside whatever audio program the user chooses - but it does require a USB port.

It is also possible to use a digital microphone without the DMI-2, with the use of an AES42 to AES/EBU or SPDIF adaptor, but then you have no way to control the parameters of the microphone, and the sampling rate is fixed. Neumann sell these as Starter Kits, and the DMI-2 can be added later.

Despite all that I've said against this technology, I think that would be a very cool system indeed. It would be even cooler if the DMI-2 could output both channels on a single AES/EBU socket, and even cooler again if it included a SPDIF output as well. It would be amazingly cool if it dispensed with AES/EBU altogether and provided *all* connections (control signals and audio data) between itself and the PC via USB2 and/or Firewire.

And that's the system as I understand at this point in time. Updates, corrections and additions are welcome...

As I have said earlier, this is not brand spanking new technology, it's been around for a two or more years now. Sadly, I don't see any equipment manufacturers rushing to support AES42, and I still think the system will die from apathy and fence-sitting - the manufacturers won't include the interfaces until there is demand for it, but the demand won't be created if there is no interface to use with it. And considering the price required to get the system up and going, perhaps that demand will never happen. The mics aren't suddenly going to come down in price (unless Neumann decide to have a clearance sale), and so the demand won't be driven by microphone sales. I think the technology is stuck in a Catch 22 situation. Neumann might learn from Yamaha and make a 'loss leader' product like the 02R, which hit the market at an amazingly affordable price point at the time. Yamaha were banking on the technology taking off; and by making it affordale, it did take off. Perhaps Neumann could take a similar risk in order to seed the market with digital microphones...

Other developments?

Interestingly, Schoeps are also offering a digital microphone body (the CDM-2U) that accepts any of their existing range of Collette capsules. It also conforms to the AES42 standard, but Schoeps at present don't seem to have any interface for it (at least, not that I can find). Being an AES42 product, I presume it could be connected to the Neumann box and controlled by the Neumann software.

Here are some places to find out more about AES42 and digital microphones:

http://www.Neumann.com/?lang=en&id=current_microphones&cid=d01_description

http://www.Neumann.com/img/Linkgraphics/KMD_The_Combinations.pdf

http://www.schoeps.de/PDFs/Schoeps-CMD2U.pdf

http://www.soundonsound.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=425894&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

http://mixonline.com/news/audio_Neumann_solutiond_used/index.html

http://www.aes.org/events/113/workshops/W7.cfm

http://www.aes.org/standards/b_comments/comments-draft-aes42-xxxx.cfm

That's all, folks!

Simmosonic wrote: It would be amazingly cool if it dispensed with AES/EBU altogether and provided *all* connections (control signals and audio data) between itself and the PC via USB2 and/or Firewire.

The point I'm getting at here is that if Neumann took the DMI-2 this little step further, it would remove the need for an additional interface on the computer - the DMI-2 becomes the interface.

If the KM D series' capsules are interchangeable, as they appear to be, one pair of bodies and a collection of capsules, along with a DMI-2 and a laptop with your choice of recording software, would make a very cool recording system. I'd seriously consider buying such a system, and I wouldn't care about whether it would be compatible with future systems or even if Neumann discontinued the product line due to lack of interest, because it would be an entirely self-contained system that did not have to play ball with the existing analog microphone world.

A purist two-microphone direct-to-stereo rig could be put together with a pair of digital microphones and capsule set, a DMI-2 (with USB2 and/or Firewire audio interface) and a laptop. If it is possible to power the DMI-2 from batteries, this would also be a great portable system.

But this elegance relies on the DMI-2 having a Firewire and/or USB2 audio interface to connect directly to the computer, which I believe it currently does not.

In the words of Dr Smith, "Oh the pain, the pain... so near, and yet... so far."

Simmosonic wrote: In the words of Dr Smith, "Oh the pain, the pain... so near, and yet... so far."

And, of course, all of this assumes that one likes the sound of those microphones. My own experience is that the analog KM100 series sound very good. I wouldn't put them in the same category as Schoeps or DPA, tonally, but I wouldn't kick them out, either.

Be a cheap Jewish girl like me and still record at 44.1kHz 16-bit and just surprise everybody by your superlative engineering skills.

It really is that easy
Ms. Remy Ann David

RemyRAD wrote: ...and just surprise everybody by your superlative engineering skills.

Sssh! Don't tell anyone, but I actually don't have any engineering skills. I've got a big mouth and an even bigger keyboard and mouse, but I wouldn't know one end of a microphone from the other (just like most rappers in music videos). That's why I'm moving to omnis.

Anyway, I thought it was all about the technology, not the skills. Do you mean to say that I'm wrong? :oops:

Mr. Simmons... thanks for the thorough information. Now I'm off to check your links. Especially the Schoeps info since I have a range of capsules...

Welcome back. :D

Michael

>

>

Simmosonic wrote: And, of course, all of this assumes that one likes the sound of those microphones. My own experience is that the analog KM100 series sound very good. I wouldn't put them in the same category as Schoeps or DPA, tonally, but I wouldn't kick them out, either.

But there is some evidence that its the analog electronics in the KM100 series that is what people don't like, rather than the capsule which is the same as the old KM84 capsule. I read on the Polyhymnia website that they replace the KM100 series electronics with their own for improved sound. See the New Developments section of Link removed

Hence my interest in hearing something closer to the capsule sound.

mdemeyer wrote: anyone know of a place where the Schoeps info exists in English?

The link I provided is to a pdf, and it is written in both German and English. The illustrations on page three are labelled in German (black) and English (red) beneath it. Page 4 is a repeat of page 2 in English. Page 1 is the cover page, written in English, so no problems there.

But I am not sure if you are referring to the linked pdf or if you are trying to delve further. I have gone no further than the pdf...

"I'm a bilingual illiterate; I can't read and write in two different languages" - Steven Wright

DavidSpearritt wrote: See the New Developments section of Link removed

Fantastic; it is always interesting to learn about how people modify existing equipment and improve its performance. It is even more interesting when that equipment comes from reputable brands and is well-designed in the first place...

Plush wrote: My dialect talk in my other post reflects speech of southern whites, not some slave talk.

That works for me...

The term, "nig-nog" is the official name of a Nagra tape recorder assigned by the Swiss factory.

Ah... So if I marched into Nagra's factory, found a machine on the service bench and yelled "What's wrong with this bloody Nig-Nog?" I won't get beaten to a pulp by any employees of African or West Indian ancestry?

Whew...

My burgeoning interest in the new Neumann digital offering is merely because of curiosity. I agree that the cost is ridiculous.

As you can probably tell, I've had a change of heart about the technology... I'd like to own a stereo kit, complete with capsule sets. If I was starting out anew and was happy to record directly onto a laptop (instead of buying a Nagra or similar), it could be worthwhile.

It's a bit hard to justify however with my existing rig. For the cost of the Solution D, I can buy a *very* nice selection of analog microphones and a return airfare to an exotic location or two!