I reasonably sure at least one person has used these in the very recent past. So, tell us how it went! And the differences between working with them and "other" omnis.

We want to know!

I tried them out as a test yesterday.

2 x KM 183-D into DMI-2 - AES out to Grace m902 into HD 580 headphones.

I was just playing around with them and teaching a few people about the system.

As a test I put them on the table and added 40dB of digital gain - the mics were absolutely silent and the low noise rumble we heard was basically the aircon. moving the air around.

I will really be using them in anger next week in the Menuhin Hall recording a Blüthner 9' Concert Grand - five full days of recording.

The recording setup will be as above, but going into the AES input of a Fostex FR-2 at 24/96 or 24/88.2 (I have yet to decide on the exact format).

I will report back here later.

I really hope it will be as good as I think it will be - I have invested money in this system. But, actually, they are still cheaper than a pair of MKH 20s, even including the DMI-2 (AES42 interface).




--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

John, a lazy question (I guess a bit of search would give the answer, on the other hand I guess you will not mind talking about it) -- how do you feed the power to the mics? Is there is a simple portable / battery powered way to feed them? Could you derive the power from a standard 48V phantom or how is it done? I´d really love feeding the mics from a SD 722 but I guess it cannot be easily done (still hoping).

Gunnar Hellquist

We'll be waiting...
and thanks for keeping us up on this these microphones.

Quote ghellquist:

---

-- how do you feed the power to the mics? Is there is a simple portable / battery powered way to feed them? Could you derive the power from a standard 48V phantom or how is it done?

---

The microphones are digital microphones made to the AES42 spec. This is a digital signal down 110-Ohm balanced cable, data signal sent both ways and 10V phantom powered - the spec. allows for up to 250mA. You can use normal balanced mic. cable for about 10-metres - longer you need 110-Ohm balanced AES cable up to about 200m at 24/96.

The mic. has to be fed to an AES42 input - this can either be the Neumann DMI-2 interface, the Neumann connection kit, or any mixer or DAW with an AES42 input.

The DMI-2 takes 2 mics and outputs standard AES/EBU - it also has a PC connection to the RCS control software for added control (a stereo pair including DMI-2 and software is cheaper than a pair of MKH 20 mics.).

The connection kit enables the easy connection of a single KM-D mic. to an AES/EBU or S-PDIF input (choose the type when you buy) - this option is much cheaper.

To go into a 722 you would need the mains powered DMI-2 or a single mic. (with battery box) with the connection kit.

You have to go into a digital input.

Analogue phantom is no good, even taking the power, as analogue phantom is only 10mA max. and AES42 phantom is 250mA max.

Details on the Neumann website are HERE.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

Hi, I'm very interested to hear your reports of these microphones.
What made you choose to use the 183's as opposed to 184's for your forthcoming piano recording duties?

--------------------
Don't ya jus luvvit?

John, thank you for the explanation.
Gunnar

Quote TImellis:

---

Hi, I'm very interested to hear your reports of these microphones.
What made you choose to use the 183's as opposed to 184's for your forthcoming piano recording duties?

---

I'd guess that John's reasoning will be the same as the usual one the he uses for his choice of MKHs - he'll be using a pair of spaced omnis, along with the extra bass extension they provide for recording a grand piano. If you search for his previous comments on recording pianos, you'll see what I mean

Quote TImellis:

---

What made you choose to use the 183's as opposed to 184's for your forthcoming piano recording duties?

---

Frequency response.

The 183 is ruler flat down to 20Hz (and maybe below, it's not measured).

A cardioid just cannot get the bottom end of a 9' Concert Grand and sounds thin and weedy in comparison.

You can see and compare HERE

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

Quote:

---

John: The 183 is ruler flat down to 20Hz

---

John, I meant to ask this before, will you EQ out the peak around 10kHz to get a true recording? After all you are used to the Sennheiser MKH 20 which has a flat response.

Have you used the KM 183 (normal one) before?

Mike

--------------------
Audio Recording Live

Quote MikeOates:

---

Quote:

---

John: The 183 is ruler flat down to 20Hz

---

John, I meant to ask this before, will you EQ out the peak around 10kHz to get a true recording? After all you are used to the Sennheiser MKH 20 which has a flat response.

Have you used the KM 183 (normal one) before?

---

The 183 is a diffuse-field omni - hence the presence peak (on the MKH 20 this is switchable). There will be a fee-field omni capsule later (like the KA 31).

However, in this instance the peak will be an advantage. The piano this time is a Blüthner which is not so strident as the Steinway the pianist normally uses. So the presence peak would probably be an advantage this time - and I will have them a couple of meters away, probably.

And, no, I have not used the analogue 183 in anger.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

Thanks John,

I ask, because I recorded a Yamaha Grand a few weeks back and I used KM 184's (did not have the 183 at the time as you may recall). These have a smaller peak but I found it a definate improvement in the sound by removing that hump and in fact taking some more out to make it a slight dip. This was probably due to the piano being, for want of a better word , 'plonky'.

So is it quite normal practice to EQ like this on a Piano?

Mike

Sorry for the slight hi-jack of the thread

--------------------
Audio Recording Live

As the happy owner of both KM130s and KM131s, I'd be very surprised if something with the frequency response of a 130 wasn't horrendously bright positioned that close to anything but the dullest piano in a fairly dull acoustic. I sometimes use 130s on orchestras (normally as outriggers, sometimes pointing upwards to tame the peak) or organs, where I'm working well away from them, in live acoustics, and the huge 10kHz peak works to advantage in levelling out some of the acoustic HF losses but I've never been happy with them in drier acoustics, on chamber music, or on things where I'm closer than four or five meters. And not on piano unless I'm looking for a very bright sound or trying to work around a really dull instrument or acoustic. One problem I do have with them on orchestras, and particularly on organs, is that the HF lift is large but not maintained - it comes back down again pretty hard which gives a brightness, without adding any 'air'. Sometimes this is ok but not always.

KM130s are probably the brightest omnis I own and, whilst they definitely have their uses, I don't often want quite that much lift in the upper registers. If I'm looking for HF lift, I find Schoeps MK2H and MK2S capsules (or a few othe things like diffuse field grilles on DPA/Sonodore omnis) much more useful. Both of these start their boost higher up (about an octave or more higher in the MK2H), peak higher up, boosting less, and have much wider/more gentle curves. The KM130 gives about double the lift of the MK2S, starts rising lower down, and comes down much harder on the upper side of the curve. I find that the Schoeps thing of maintaining their HF lift to higher frequencies tends to give a more open/airy sound than the KM130 thing which can sound a bit fizzy without really opening the sound out. None of these is necessarily a bad point - if I didn't like them or find them useful I wouldn't have any but I find that they can have a sort of overt brightness which somewhat limits their usefulness. I'd say that they're much more a problem fixing kind of mic rather than a general purpose kind of mic.

I'm still looking forward to trying out the new 'D' mics - but I might wait until they have a flat omni/KM131 equivalent. In the meantime, there's always ....the Schoeps CMD2U Colette series digital preamp/body to try out. Then I can use all my Schoeps capsules - no need to buy a complete new range of mics

If only Neumann had based their D range on the older KM8x series rather than the to me, much less pleasant/flexible/useful KM18x series; that would've been really interesting

Quote 0VU:

---

If only Neumann had based their D range on the older KM8x series rather than the to me, much less pleasant/flexible/useful KM18x series; that would've been really interesting

---

But the capsules on the two series were the same - it was only the analogue electronics and connectivity that were different.

The KM84, KM184 and KM 140 are basically the same capsule.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

Quote 0VU:

---

In the meantime, there's always ....the Schoeps CMD2U Colette series digital preamp/body to try out. Then I can use all my Schoeps capsules - no need to buy a complete new range of mics

---

Nice, but the Schoeps converts at 24-Bits and the Neumann at 28-Bits.....

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

Quote:

---

But the capsules on the two series were the same - it was only the analogue electronics and connectivity that were different.

The KM84, KM184 and KM 140 are basically the same capsule.

---

Yet they sound very different from one another. And the published graphs suggest that they plot as different as they sound. (Though the paper plots could be down to different measurement methods(?))

My point should perhaps have been that I wish they'd based the D series on the sound of the older fet80 series rather than the 100 series. (Bearing in mind that I've not heard the D mics - I'm just basing my interest in hearing them on the official line that they sound like the 100 series.) I have KM83s, and 84s, (even 85s and 88s) and they sound quite different from my KM130/131, 140, etc..

Of course, probably the biggest difference is in the age of the fet80s vs the very much newer 100series. I guess that'd certainly account for a fairly major performance difference even if they started off identically specified.

Quote:

---

Nice, but the Schoeps converts at 24-Bits and the Neumann at 28-Bits.....

---

True enough - and I've heard neither so I'll reserve judgement until I have.

On balance though, a digital body which fits in with my fairly large investment already made in a mic system that I really like, initially, is a lot more appealling than a digital mic which requires the purchase of an entirely new system (ignoring another fairly large investment in KM100 series mics and accessories) and which seems to be based upon a range of mics that I already like slightly less overall - especially when it lacks the capsules I use most in that range and doesn't appear to be compatible with the accessories which drew me to the range in the first place.

For me, it puts the Neumann at a logistical/financial disadvantage from which it has a long way to catch up. Though it might well surpass the Schoeps in sound quality by enough to make it a front runner. Or the Schoeps may sound crap - but I don't expect it to.

My understanding - the Schoeps will be free running (not clocked). As they are 24-bit you will have to be a bit more careful setting the level in software. But I would expect them to sound the same as the analogue versions soundwise, but with a lower noise floor.

The Neumann KM-D converts at 28-Bit and you then optimise the 24-Bit output. There is a built-in limiter to prevent overload. They are locked to the studio clock via the DMI-2.

I'm glad Schoeps are doing this as it will, hopefully, persuade mixer and DAW manufacturers to come up with AES42 inputs.

From your earlier comment - if I find the KM 183-D too bright on the day, I will just twist them 45 or 90 degrees off-axis to smooth the response.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

Since we have bearded a Neumann/Sennheiser man in his den so to speak, can I as a proud owner and user of pairs of both KM84s and KM184s enquire why, since I have never yet encountered a client who in a straight shoot-out prefers the sound of the latter, KM84s are no longer produced and have not been for 20-odd years?

Discontinue something in the name of innovation and progress if you must, but if subsequent events prove you wrong, why not produce a few more?

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

I will pass the message back to Neumann.

The KM 84 and 184 have the same capsule - the 184 has the transformerless electronics of the KM100 series.

So maybe it's the transformer distortion that is liked ???

Some people say vinyl is better - but is it modulation noise that they are comfortable with, rather than greater accuracy?

Sometimes rose coloured spectacles may seem nicer than clear glass - but which is better?

(sorry, posting after polishing off a couple of bottles of vino)

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

Hey John, they could sell both, and make money. Us alcoholics can't have too much of a good thing you know!

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote John Willett:

---

I will pass the message back to Neumann.

---

It would be quite remarkable if they listen to you when they have resolutely ignored the user base for years. Countless people have complained directly and through published reviews about the 184 being too bright and the 84 being a much better balanced (and therefore more usable) microphone.

Quote:

---

The KM 84 and 184 have the same capsule - the 184 has the transformerless electronics of the KM100 series.
So maybe it's the transformer distortion that is liked ???

---

No, it's never been a distortion issue, it is a frequency response issue. Maybe the transformer output design had a more uniform top end, but I suspect it is simply mechanical tweaking of the capsule to provide that slightly excessive high end peak.

I don't disagree that the fundamental crossed-slit capsule design is similar across the models, and all used a gold sputtered polyester diaphgrams...but there are material differences, from what I understand. Indeed, Neumann's own litterature ascribes different capsule numbers: the KM84 originally used the KK64 capsule and later the KK84 capsule, while the current KM184 uses the K40 capsule. So there must be some physical differences... and of course the published frequency responses and polar plots confirm that.

Quote:

---

Some people say vinyl is better - but is it modulation noise that they are comfortable with, rather than greater accuracy?

---

...Er but the KM184 is less accurate than its predecessor. Neumann's own website says:

Quote:

---

Although the KM 184 has the same capsule as the KM 84, the microphone differs slightly on the 0° frequency response: The KM 184 has a gentle rise at about 9 kHz, a characteristic that was introduced very successfully with the KM 140. The result is a tonal balance that is fresher and livelier when compared to the KM 84 with its flat frequency response in that band.

---

So the high peak was introduced deliberately to make it sound 'fresher and livelier'. In other words, it was produced as a response to a passing fashion in the early 1990s for a bright screechy sound!

Quote:

---

Sometimes rose coloured spectacles may seem nicer than clear glass - but which is better?

---

Depends what you are trying to do. Users of KM84s generally wanted to capture clean, accurate sounds. They wanted the clear glass version. Sadly, Neumann decided to provide tinted glass in the successor model, forcing everyone to put up with coloured sound...

Don't get me wrong: the KM184 is a nice mic and I own three of them. They are useful mics. But they aren't as useful or natural sounding as the KM84, and given a choice, I'd swap my 184s for 84s in a flash. No question at all!

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote John Willett:

---

I will pass the message back to Neumann.

---

It would be quite remarkable if they listen to you when they have resolutely ignored the user base for years. Countless people have complained directly and through published reviews about the 184 being too bright and the 84 being a much better balanced (and therefore more usable) microphone.

Quote:

---

The KM 84 and 184 have the same capsule - the 184 has the transformerless electronics of the KM100 series.
So maybe it's the transformer distortion that is liked ???

---

No, it's never been a distortion issue, it is a frequency response issue. Maybe the transformer output design had a more uniform top end, but I suspect it is simply mechanical tweaking of the capsule to provide that slightly excessive high end peak.

I don't disagree that the fundamental crossed-slit capsule design is similar across the models, and all used a gold sputtered polyester diaphgrams...but there are material differences, from what I understand. Indeed, Neumann's own litterature ascribes different capsule numbers: the KM84 originally used the KK64 capsule and later the KK84 capsule, while the current KM184 uses the K40 capsule. So there must be some physical differences... and of course the published frequency responses and polar plots confirm that.

Quote:

---

Some people say vinyl is better - but is it modulation noise that they are comfortable with, rather than greater accuracy?

---

...Er but the KM184 is less accurate than its predecessor. Neumann's own website says:

Quote:

---

Although the KM 184 has the same capsule as the KM 84, the microphone differs slightly on the 0° frequency response: The KM 184 has a gentle rise at about 9 kHz, a characteristic that was introduced very successfully with the KM 140. The result is a tonal balance that is fresher and livelier when compared to the KM 84 with its flat frequency response in that band.

---

So the high peak was introduced deliberately to make it sound 'fresher and livelier'. In other words, it was produced as a response to a passing fashion in the early 1990s for a bright screechy sound!

Quote:

---

Sometimes rose coloured spectacles may seem nicer than clear glass - but which is better?

---

Depends what you are trying to do. Users of KM84s generally wanted to capture clean, accurate sounds. They wanted the clear glass version. Sadly, Neumann decided to provide tinted glass in the successor model, forcing everyone to put up with coloured sound...

Don't get me wrong: the KM184 is a nice mic and I own three of them. They are useful mics. But they aren't as useful or natural sounding as the KM84, and given a choice, I'd swap my 184s for 84s in a flash. No question at all!

Hugh

---

Thanks for putting your opinions where your mouth is on this one Hugh. There are countless threads on this forum and many others from project studios to people who are huge on the LA scene that say exactly the same thing. The KM184 is a great mike ruined by a passing fad. KM84s in matched or sequential pairs still sell for well over a grand in the UK even if they look like they've had a bit of a hard life.

1000s of professional consumers can't wrong. In the final analysis the customer is, more often that not, right!

Reg

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

Thanks for putting your opinions where your mouth is on this one Hugh.

---

I always do.... it's just the level of tact that varies

Quote:

---

1000s of professional consumers can't wrong. In the final analysis the customer is, more often that not, right!

---

Quite so.

The debate continues here

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Yo guys-the capsules are the same but the vents are not!! That is why the KM directionals have that silly peak (feature). They had to move the vents when they went to the current modular KM series. You'll see that the "old" diffuse omni is quite like the "new" omni, while the direcctionals are not.

OK - I have just spent a week in Menuhin Hall recording a Blüthner Concert Grand with a pair of the KM 183-Ds.

I ended up mounting them vertical or they were too bright for what we wanted.

They were about 6-feet from the piano, at shoulder height and about 20cm apart (the width of a K&M stereo bar).

We must have recorded 7 or 8 hours in total - lots of editing to do - but he did insist on playing the most difficult piano piece known to man

I ended up with a 25dB gain setting (in digits in the mic.) but no compression.

The mics do have a peak limiter, but this was not needed - though the maximum peak was only about 1dB below FSD.

The results were excellent - every time we played back a take we kept thinking it wasn't playing (until you heard me calling the take ID) because they were so quiet !

I will definitely be in the market for the KK131-D flat omni head when it comes out next year.

I still have at least another 10-days recording to do next year and another 10-days editing.

Now - do I go for Samplitude9?????

Excellent service from Canford Audio, by the way. I was monitoring on K+H O110 loudspeakers via my Grace m902 - the 902 analogue output is on phonos and the 110s input is balanced XLR - I needed a consumer to pro interface in a hurry. Rang Canford mid afternoon and it was delivered to site the next morning

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

Quote 0VU:

---

One problem I do have with them on orchestras, and particularly on organs, is that the HF lift is large but not maintained - it comes back down again pretty hard which gives a brightness, without adding any 'air'. Sometimes this is ok but not always.

KM130s are probably the brightest omnis I own and, whilst they definitely have their uses, I don't often want quite that much lift in the upper registers. If I'm looking for HF lift, I find Schoeps MK2H and MK2S capsules (or a few othe things like diffuse field grilles on DPA/Sonodore omnis) much more useful. Both of these start their boost higher up (about an octave or more higher in the MK2H), peak higher up, boosting less, and have much wider/more gentle curves. The KM130 gives about double the lift of the MK2S, starts rising lower down, and comes down much harder on the upper side of the curve. I find that the Schoeps thing of maintaining their HF lift to higher frequencies tends to give a more open/airy sound than the KM130 thing which can sound a bit fizzy without really opening the sound out.

---

I couldn't agree more with this lower and severe peak thing going on with the Neumanns-it really changes the tonality of instruments-with organ, suddenly the mixtures predominate and you get all this chiff that is not there.

I wonder if this whole omni aesthetic came from theories from a bygone era, which were, perhaps, never particularly relevant to anything.

They were meant do be used in the "diffuse field," therefore, they were given a 6 dB (or more!-Neumann is 8dB) boost because that's what the HF loss was thought to be. But most people don't use the mics in the diffuse field, they use them at or very slightly inside of the reverberation radius. And that distance of use is chosen because that's where things sound the best and most natural! So, they why use a mic that completely wrecks the desired sound by "compensating" for distance?

Further, Neumann personnel state that at anything over 1 meter, most of the sound heard is ambient and diffuse, not direct-a claim that I completely dispute.

Likewise, at a larger distance, one doesn't want to hear a "brightened" ambience caused by a "diffuse" mic. That messes up the real ambience of large room and concert halls-where-generally, the reverb naturally attenuates from the top down. Again, this kind of thing really upsets the whole aesthetic thing happening with the hall.

Unless you're really working substantially outside of the reverb radius, I wouldn't point the 183s at or near a source.

My curiosity, though, makes me wonder what the Neumanns will sound like. I've always thought the modern small capsule Neumanns (FET) sound hard as nails, and that's *not* because of any HF peaks. They're just think sounding mics, particularly when compared to Schoeps. The digital versions take much of this away, so it will be interesting to hear what the capsules really sound like.

Now, if they would only move those vents back to the original positions on the SC directionals.

Time will tell.

At the risk of beating this topic to death, I thought I'd make one comment solely on this issue of the brightness of the KM 100 series as compared to the earlier (non 100 series with transformer output) versions.

There have been countless postings over many years on the various incarnations of the Neumann BB. And countless answers from Martin Schneider saying the very same thing: When going to the new modular KM 100 series, there was some sort of manufacturing issue which mandated the relocation of the vents. Thus, the impetus was **not** a revised aesthetic of and a "new sound," but that the "new sound" was a serendipitous result of the relocation of the vents.

When the mics were found to have this new HF peak, the Neumann folks thought this was a great "feature," and not a fault. But again, this was not a sought after effect, this was an unplanned effect from a manufacturing parameter. (My own editorial version of this would be: "Hey, it's a new feature, not a fault!"

There have also been hundreds (literally) of posts to Neumann about wanting flat capsules. The responses were (in the past years, at least), solely from Martin Schneider, and the comments were all along these lines:

There is so little in the 3 dB boost (of the 140 capsule-the 180 series had not been invented yet) that he didn't understand why this was an issue. And those comments were always followed by "if we made a whole series of capsules accommodating everyones' wishes, they would be so expensive that no one would buy them."

The elephant in the room, however, is that Schoeps had been doing this all along, and never had any problem finding people to buy their microphones and capsules.

I am not at all criticizing Mr. Schneider, a very knowledgeable person who very generously shares his time and expertise with everyone who asks. He would be the first to affirm, though, that he is an engineer, as are most of the folks at Neumann. They are not musicians nor recording engineers. They rely on feedback from their users and customers. Historically, Neumann has done this as well, particularly in their associations with Telefunken and, especially, Decca.

But that is the paradox. There were *no* comments on the boards to the effect of: "Gee, we love those peaky capsules and we don't want or need anything else."

Rather, quite the opposite was (is) true. The Neumann forums (the old ones are posted separately) are full of comments asking for the flat capsules. For some time in the past, the KM84 mic commanded a much higher price on the used market than the 140 and later 184.

It's hard to reconcile Neumann's statements with any observable evidence.

For me, the Neumann SC mics in the 100 and 180 series sound absolutely "thin" relative to Scheops mics. Schoeps has used (in the past) all class A designs, where Neumann has used all sorts of combinations of circuit topologies in a mic, and for what it's worth, Neumann has gone to a single sided impedance balanced output (in their analogue designs), which have their advantages and disadvantages.. This "thinness" is probably the result of the Neumann FET system rather than their capsules (or I would assume so).

It seems Neumann has really gone after a specific segment of the commercial market-that might sound elitist, but I'm not criticizing their decision to do so-perhaps they should just be clear with their customers about what they're doing or trying to do.

Here again, though, we would have statements to the effect of: "It's only 3 dB, who cares?"

This is the paradox of Neumann at present. But if we observe their product development, their direction is quite clear. Perhaps they need to adjust their rhetoric to match their (very fine!) products, and fewer people will be left scratching their heads.

Quote Jeraldo:

---

This is the paradox of Neumann at present. But if we observe their product development, their direction is quite clear. Perhaps they need to adjust their rhetoric to match their (very fine!) products, and fewer people will be left scratching their heads.

---

I thinks both they and their parent, Sennheiser, need to stop trading on past glories and wake up to realise there's a market out there. I've got 20+ Neumann/Sennheiser mics in the studio here and I am increasingly impressed by "competitors" (Neumann would sneer at the term in this context) like Rode, SE Electronics, Studio Projects... not to mention some ofthe more boutique (but good value) products out there such as Crowley & Tripp etc.

It grieves me to say it but I think they are these days, largely, just taking the piss out of their customer base. If you want to contradict that statement, start by explaining how they justify charging £30 for this piece of plastic! http://www.thomann.de/gb/sennheiser_mza421.htm
(Shipping extra).

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Thats not just any piece of plastic, thats a piece of quality engineered German plastic.

This plastic clip has been designed to the most exacting standards and tested by the finest German engineers in a hermatically sealed controlled environment where even the microbes wear clean suits and little white rubber wellies.

The stringent adherance to ISO9001 parts I, II & III ensure that this piece of plastic will grip in precisely the right way to produce an 'industry standard' response from your microphone.

We guarantee that at no point during the manufacture of this plastic clip has any Chinaman or Aboriginal Australian been involved. Part of our QA program checks all employees involved in the R&D and delivery chain. All emplyees have been designated free of Chinese and Aboriginal genes for at lest eight generations. The conformance is noted in part nine of our 2006 audit by the DNV Gestapo audit team. We reported no non-conformances to procedure.

If you do not like the sound of our microphones you will be shot!

Anyone not using our microphones is an amateur.

Any microphone costing less than a thousand euro is crap.

We won the war really.

I think that gets my post of the week award. With a bonus point or two for a total absence of political correctness!

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...