Jump to content

Neumann Digital Mics for Film Production


sinnlicht

Recommended Posts

Hi all, 

 

Thanks to Medzid Vesili from Neummann Berlin we were able to test the complete Neumann digital solution for film production including:

 

2x KM D digital output stage

2x KM A analog output stage

KK 120 figure-8 capsule

KK 184 cardioid capsule

KK 185 hypercardioid capsule

KMR 81 D digital shotgun mic 

DMI-2 Aes42 two channel portable control unit

RCS AES 42 Control Software

 

We were really impressed by the advantages over analog solutions for unpredictable shooting situations. If there is enough interest I will coordinate with Gotham and Neumann to make it available for a demo at Gotham in New York. If anyone would like to see the complete system work as it was intended PM me. Medzid Vesili is offering direct product support from the engineers who developed the line and special package pricing to sound mixers.

 

Richard

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Constantin,

the KM D's need AES42 if used alone; and the DMI-2 outputs a two channel AES3 signal.

For example, the SD 664 (what we use) can take the AES3 signal from the DMI-2 and it comes in on inputs 1 and 2 or 5 and 6 (allowing for M+S); the SD 664 will also take two AES42 mics separately on inputs 1 and 6.

We don't use a wireless boom with AES3 or AES42, so someone else would need to weigh in on that. 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Nick,

i am not an engineer, but the KM D digital output stage works internally with a 28 bit dynamic range. it has circuits which adapt to changes of volume, imperceptibly shifting the internal dynamic range before any preamps, and then outputting that signal to 24bit AES42. For doc this means an added level of production security and quality. The KM D digital output stage allows specifically for a (i) before pre-amp limiter and (ii) a compressor which can be set up to work as a de-esser (iii) an attenuation function that allows the mic the deal with audio up to 141 db.

In addition, handling noise was significantly lower in m/s in comparison with our reference cmc6mk41/mkh30 setup.

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I had a similar question like Jim...

to me it looks like the digital mics are more expensive and the DMI-2 is an extra piece of gear to lug around (which adds weight, more expense and another point of failure) - so what exactly do I get in return?

 

Quote

The KM D digital output stage allows specifically for a (i) before pre-amp limiter and

 

we can get that with quite a few analog solutions as well 

 

Quote

(ii) a compressor which can be set up to work as a de-esser

 

not sure I want to have any compressor or de-esser unless I'm doing live to air shows

 

Quote

(iii) an attenuation function that allows the mic the deal with audio up to 141 db. 

 

what's the advantage over a traditional attenuation filter here?

 

Quote

In addition, handling noise was significantly lower in m/s in comparison with our reference cmc6mk41/mkh30 setup.

 

is that really related to the mics having an A/D built in or is that more related to the mics and the suspension used?

 

chris

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Chris, 

 

To eliminate some confusion off the top. I offered to put together something for mixers to look at this kit themselves, if they are interested, and asked such people to PM me in order not have to engage in the troll wars that are endemic to this platform. I did not post as an (i) expert telling other people what they should think or do (ii) nor representing Neumann.

 

I will do my best fo answer the questions from our experience:

(i) The main point remains that the 28bit internal dynamic range and the circuitry that shifts the sensitivity of the mic to allow for signal that would normally be well beyond recovery to be reproduced. This can be further augmented by the limiter to basically mean that that  no normal signal will be unrecordable.

(ii) The de-esser is an option of the compressor, hence the de-esser aspect is just there additionally if one cares. 

(iii) The fact that you can effectively program the mic to move its native dynamic range before the use of pre-amp allows the (i) noise floor to adapt the (ii) maximum volume range that one expects to confront. 

(iv) The different mics were used in the same suspension. Every report on mic practice will depend on a myriad of factors that cannot be listed here. We needed the quietest M/S setup we could find, after testing a variety of mic combinations, this was the quietest in terms of handling noise transmission. YMMV.

(v) While working from a bag the DMI-2 is only needed in some configurations where you need to send an AES3 signal to the recorder (M/S for example). Otherwise the mics can be programmed and then used with AES42 without the DMI-2.  if you do need the DMI-2, It is not heavy or wider than a pair of wireless receivers and is powered by 4-pin hirose. The DMI-2 has a series of programmable "slots" where you can store and recall different parameter setups. We find this useful, but here too, YMMV.

 

Richard

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi Richard,

 

no offence was intended and I appreciate you reporting your findings.

I can totally imagine that the digital mics sound great and are nice to work with, it's only that most points you mention don't seem to be a big deal to me and probably not worth the extra expense, bulk and complexity for my typical work, I guess that was true for Jim as well.

 

The one point that does sound great is less handling noise, if it's really due to the digital interface (ie the same mics with analog interface and with the same suspension had more problems) then that might be worth upgrading for those who do a lot of MS work.

 

actually that seems like an interesting question:

do people find that a mic with digital interface has less handling noice in general over the same mic with analog interface?

(maybe due to less cable introduced noise?)

 

all the best

chris 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what might be of interest to folks who hang out on this forum (working video field production sound people mostly) would be to hear from those who have used the system the OP describes on some real world jobs.  If that has already happened, please tell us the story, spare no detail.  If it hasn't happened yet and you don't have plans to do this then getting this gear to interested professionals and letting them use it on their jobs in a good way to go.  In general folks here don't get very excited by numbers and specs--they want to hear how the new gear made the work of someone like themselves go well and sound better than what they were using previously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2019 at 12:03 PM, sinnlicht said:

Hi Constantin,

the KM D's need AES42 if used alone; and the DMI-2 outputs a two channel AES3 signal.

For example, the SD 664 (what we use) can take the AES3 signal from the DMI-2 and it comes in on inputs 1 and 2 or 5 and 6 (allowing for M+S); the SD 664 will also take two AES42 mics separately on inputs 1 and 6.

We don't use a wireless boom with AES3 or AES42, so someone else would need to weigh in on that. 

 

Yes, I am well aware of the requirements for AES42 and also of todays needs to go wireless in many if not most situations. Many recorders (like the 788T and almost all newer ones) offer native AES42 inputs... 

 

I‘m not really sure what your original post is all about? Digital mics have been around for a long time and most of us here are more or less familiar with them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After researching the digital solutions for some time, I found very little information and almost no stock anywhere, and no ability to test the system in New York. Neumann in Berlin was kind enough to lend me all of the gear listed above for our testing specifically in the area of m/s recording for documentaries, after which we bought it. The equipment proved useful to us, for example in situations where the mixer is also booming in rapidly changing and unpredictable situations. In addition, knowing a direct engaged Neumann contact interested in offering package deals and facilitating direct support to interested mixers is information that would have saved me a lot of time and effort.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I‘ve had a pair of the digital Neumann KM184D for at least 12 or so years, so it’s not new. Neumann gradually expanded the range to include more and more mics, but the basics are unchanged. 

The advantage of the mics is indeed that they don’t require a regular external preamp. They do not 

On 8/9/2019 at 12:50 PM, sinnlicht said:

adapt to changes of volume, imperceptibly shifting the internal dynamic range before any preamps

 

Instead they use a gain-ranging technology, similar to Zaxcom‘s NeverClip, but they did so way before Zaxcom. In fact this happens after the amplifier inside the microphone. This greatly increases the usable dynamic range of the microphone, to around 130dB. As I mentioned above, this can be directly recorded by most current recorders, which provide AES42. I find the increase in dynamic range to be of limited interest just like the improved noise figures, because the improvement is only small. Although I should mention that in the case of the analog mic the figures would need to be considered in conjunction with the recorder (preamp and a/d) figures, which will increase noise and decrease dynamic range. Most standard recorders only have a dynamic range of 110-120dB, so being able to increase that to 130dB or more is not insignificant. Most importantly to me though, is the fact that the mics have a peak limiter built into them. And a particularly transparent one, too. To me, that is pretty cool. In the end, though, it’s still a Neumann mic and I personally prefer other mics. 

 

3 hours ago, Philip Perkins said:

-they want to hear how the new gear made the work of someone like themselves go well and sound better than what they were using previously.

 

Two years ago I worked on a job which involved traumatized dogs in a very special setting. Don’t want to waste too much time with the details about this, but this couldn‘t be boomed, so all actors wore lavs, but the dogs couldn’t, they were really really aggressive. And they would bark really really loudly at any moment without any warning whatsoever. But the next moment it would be really quiet again and people whispering. 

I used the KMD184 as ambience mics for this, as they had the limiter built in and since they were mounted somewhere difficult to access, I could change their output gain (if I wanted to) via the DMI-2 interface. And the whole system was clocked to my recorder. So that was quite useful. But since they are a pair of cardioids I have not used them in many other situations, except maybe some ambiences here and there. But I do not find them noticeably quieter on quiet sounds, so didn’t bother

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, chrismedr said:

Actually I had a similar question like Jim...

to me it looks like the digital mics are more expensive and the DMI-2 is an extra piece of gear to lug around (which adds weight, more expense and another point of failure) - so what exactly do I get in return?

 

You don’t need the DMI-2. What you get (but only with Neumann mics, others have been less successful with their digital mics, Schoeps have even stopped making them) is increased specs relating to self noise and dynamic range and peak SPL and a built in peak limiter. That’s it. 

18 hours ago, chrismedr said:

what's the advantage over a traditional attenuation filter here?

 

Absolutely none. 

18 hours ago, chrismedr said:

 

is that really related to the mics having an A/D built in or is that more related to the mics and the suspension used?

 

 

No, it‘s due to the mic not the a/d converter. And I don’t even agree with the assessment, at least when comparing my KM184 to my KM184D. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, sinnlicht said:

in order not have to engage in the troll wars that are endemic to this platform. 

 

You are probably confusing JWSoundgroup with Facebook. This here is not Facebook, indeed it’s very very different. To my knowledge there are no trolls here and Jim certainly isn’t one if them. In fact he is one if the most knowledgeable and respected members here. 

A general thought: if you post in a discussion group, such as this is, you are going to have to accept that people are going to have a discussion with you, and you can’t expect everyone to always love you or even just agree with you. So people will disagree and contradict you and others may agree with you, and not everyone of both factions will even post their opinion. But very often having both here leads to more profound discussions with usually a better understanding what it all was about than after just reading the first post. For the group as a whole that’s very beneficial. 

 

However this

11 hours ago, sinnlicht said:

and asked such people to PM me 

is totally going against the idea of an open discussion forum and in fact totally negates it. If everyone were following that route, this would be the dullest forum ever and likely wouldn’t exist anymore

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yikes.  You are talking about a member that has almost 3000 posts and who know a thing or three about sound and microphones.  I am glad Neumann was so forthcoming with their gear, but if you are going to put up a(what appears to me to be a shill) posting here, you can certainly expect some with different needs, experience and understanding to asked pointed questions.  If we need any information, maybe we can just reach out to Neumann.

 

D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Constantin, I am grateful for your technical clarification which goes a long way to explain what we experienced in practice. We don't have to agree, as you say, on the perception of the culture of this forum. 

 

Dear Doug, the assertion that there is, or even should be, one "we" on this forum that can be weaponized at will, given enough posts and expertise, is nothing that contributes to the open discussion that is worthy of the diverse range of experience present on this platform. it is exactly this habit of a small but vocal minority of members to stylize others as outside the group (including things like the facebook reference above) in order to discredit or malign them that earns the forum its mixed reputation, despite its vastly knowledgeable and experienced professional members.

 

At any rate, I look forward to any further useful information/experiences that come to light through this discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Constantin said:

 

You don’t need the DMI-2. What you get (but only with Neumann mics, others have been less successful with their digital mics, Schoeps have even stopped making them) is increased specs relating to self noise and dynamic range and peak SPL and a built in peak limiter. That’s it. 

 

Absolutely none. 

 

No, it‘s due to the mic not the a/d converter. And I don’t even agree with the assessment, at least when comparing my KM184 to my KM184D. 

 

 

I am curious about any specific experience re handling noise impact using the high pass filter in the RCS/KM D 185/120 M/S configuration vs an analog high pass filter in your recorder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I' ll give my experiences, it's not Neumann microphones related (although Neumann was acquired by Sennheiser, so...)

 

I'm not very happy with digital Microphones. I tried, paid a bunch, got frustrated. Never tried again and am happy with the good old analog signal.

 

Several years before I bought the Sennheiser MZD for 8000 https://en-us.sennheiser.com/mzd-8000 series Module that converts the analog signal to an AES signal, and tried using it on my sd 633 AES input.

I Wanted to have more flexibility (like pads or low cut filters setup via DSP) and less noise floor, and use a digital mic,seems cool, theorically. It's supposed to be the future of audio, right ? For me it seemed uber cool.

 

After One or 2 shots, I went back to my analog preamp. I just heard a random, very subtle, but sometimes present, hiss. Went tru a lot of tests to sort out the problem, never had the solution until now. 

 

Got the file on a spectrum analyser, did lots of analysis of this signal before put the module on the closet and forget about this very expensive compulsive buy that does not fit my expectations.

 

Among others things :

 

- I Used a "true" AES cable (this is not cheap and I felt kinda forced to buy it just to try if the signal was better but this "true AES pure 110 ohm cable"... Humpf... Did not fix the hiss). But now I got an expensive neutrik  AES cable, nice. I could use it as a premium XLR cable.

 

- I asked Sound Devices & Sennheiser support and I got some leads.

 

I was wondering about the samplerates who might mess up the signal but the 633 has a Sample Rate Converter built in, so I wouldn't worry so much... Sennheiser on the other hand told me that, hold on, the sample rate as factory preset in their module is....

 

44100 

...yup...

 

So I always thought maybe this little high frequency hiss might come from an upconversion from the SRC, due to (I'm guessing) some interpolations samples created, But I'm not expert.

 

I asked Sennheiser What Could I do to match the module and recorder sample rates and avoid an extra work from my trusty 633 who does allready a lot, hoping that they would tell me that they'll fix this for me, as I paid top dollar for an MKH plus this module...

 

...Their answer was "we don't have this line of products in mind and are not really keen to develop full support for the MKH series" (duh) "so what you could try, is to buy an neumann DMI interface and change the samplerate yourself via the DSP and enjoy the full experience with this wonderful items"... If you ask me, it's just too vague. I will not put more money to "try" just change a setting and pray that it fixes the problem.

 

Well. At this point I just put this module on the useless sound stuff shelf on my closet. And tried to reach someone who might have this neumann DMI interface just to change the samplerate, but it is not a very common product.

 

So yeah here it is.

I hoped when I bought that digital module also that sennheiser would developp an MKH8030 so I could pair the MZD module to a figure 8 and my 8060 and have a really nice digital MS rig but seems compromised also.

 

Sorry for the long text, and the poor english.

 

in analog we trust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...