Topic: Lo priced forgiving HyperCard or multpattern

[MakersMarc]

About the only thing I don't have. 4022s don't cut it from the backs of bad rooms. Thanks!

Size not an issue.

[Phil Zone]

I love the busman Bsc-1 the hypers are very nice. Not sure if that's n your price range

[chinariderstl]

It really depends what you mean by "low priced;" low priced is a relative term.

I'm not sure how low priced the following are, but all will make sick tapes.

The AKG Blueline series has a hyper cap: AKG SE300B / CK93.

The AKG C480B line also has a hyper cap, the CK63-ULS. You could purchase a pair of the caps and order an active setup from 'followingbob.' I believe he still makes actives for that line. I would check the 'Retail Section' of this site to be sure.

Another option, though I'm not sure if they are still in production, is the Busman BSC1's. They include a set of hyper caps.

Audio-Technica also makes a hyper in their AT405x series, but they are pretty spendy.

I would keep an eye on the 'Yard Sale' board on this site. You'd be surprised at the deals you can find on some pretty nice gear.

I've included some links below, just to give you an idea of what's out there.

HTH

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/349107-REG/AKG_Blue_Line_Series_Microphone.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/128246-REG/AKG_2231_Z_00250_CK63_ULS_Hyper_Cardioid_Capsule.html

http://www.busmanaudio.com/bsc1.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/642499-REG/Audio_Technica_AT4053B_AT4053b_Hypercardioid_Condenser_Microphone.html

[DSatz]

It's relatively simple to make an inexpensive omnidirectional condenser microphone that sounds pretty good, and many manufacturers in many countries have learned how to do that. Directional capsules of equivalent quality are more complicated to design and manufacture--supercardioids most of all. Thus the quality of the best available omnis at a moderate price point is noticeably higher than the quality of the cardioids at that same price point--and for supercardioids, the "you-get-what-you-pay-for effect" is even greater.

With supercardioids there is an additional disruptive factor: the primary market for highly directional microphones is public address and film/video sound applications, not music recording. As a result the large majority of supercardioid microphones have significantly reduced low-frequency sensitivity by design. Unfortunately this isn't always evident from published frequency response curves or specifications, since the manufacturers of speech-oriented microphones generally measure their products at shorter distances from the test sound source than studio microphones would normally be measured, on the reasoning that the microphones are intended to be used at those shorter distances. But the closer the measurement distance that's used for a directional microphone, the more bass will show up in the graph due to proximity effect, which is not subtracted out. For sound sources beyond 1 or 2 meters distance, the response e.g. at 50 Hz can well be 10 dB less than what the graph or list of specifications will indicate. (10 dB is quite a lot.)

Finally, I have to lay it on the line: There is no type of microphone that will, by its nature, pick up good sound "from the back of a bad room." A supercardioid will eliminate more room sound at any given distance than any other first-order pattern will do. But those few supercardioid condenser microphones that have smooth, wide frequency response and a directional pattern that remains constant across the frequency range--an especially important characteristic when most of the sound is coming in from fairly random angles--are not "lo priced".

If I had to choose the supercardioid microphone with the best performance for the lowest price, I would probably choose the Beyer M 160 ribbon with the understanding that it can never, ever, ever be used outdoors (ribbons are more fragile than condensers), and that as a very low-output dynamic microphone, it will always be significantly more vulnerable to hum and radio frequency interference than a modern condenser microphone. However, unfortunately, the M 160 isn't cheap, and it would take a lot of trust to buy them used, since one moron who blows into the microphone to see if it's "on" can damage it, although that damage will be totally invisible externally. -- A possible alternative, which is smaller, less fragile and less costly, is the Beyer M 201 N(C)--but it's been literally decades since I used that model, and perhaps I'm remembering it with more fondness than it deserves, I dunno.

--best regards

[MakersMarc]

Thanks guys. I've also  actually never been a believer that hypers make a huge difference. I very rarely wind up in that situation, and frankly not sure it's worth it for the couple of times a year I do....and even then, it's not like you're gonna pull a great tape vs. a bad one...just maybe a touch better. 500 is probably my budget, should have included that, sorry.

[MakersMarc]

Had the 483s years ago and still miss them some....versatile unlike the dpas.

[MakersMarc]

Marc... Step away from the ATM.  Now... There you go. 

Not a $500 mic but the Noomann KM150 seems to be highly regarded as hypers go.  If you want super directionality shouldn't you be seeking a pair of 'guns?

No kidding.  yeah, I really should be looking for guns, if anything. I loved my 483s tho, if I see some might be hard to pass by.......

Had Nak 100s a long time ago, might have to watch for some guns.

[backwhereubelong]

I use the Naiant Hypers and get nice results.  Can't beat the price as well ...

http://naiant.com/studio-electronics-products/microphones/x-r-interchangeable-capsule-microphone/

[MakersMarc]

Forgot Jon even made mics...thanks!

[flipp]

since you say "Size not an isue" I'm surprised no one has mentioned the ADK-TLs yet and they are near the upper end of your budget

[MakersMarc]

Always wanted a pair...thanks for the reminder.

[DSatz]

> If you want super directionality shouldn't you be seeking a pair of 'guns?

Big no. 144-point, Times New Roman, bold, color=red, with a thick box around it.

[1] The main problem area in most "bad rooms" is at low frequencies, but shotguns are only highly directional at high and mid-high frequencies (= speech consonant frequencies). And even at those frequencies, the "distance factor" of a typical shotgun mike as compared to a cardioid is less than 2:1. No one in the professional audio world uses shotguns for long-distance miking; rather, professionals use them to get just enough extra "reach" so that the mike can be BARELY outside the film or video frame and still get acceptable clarity.

[2] Shotguns may sound good within their main front pickup angle, but when the sound field is diffuse (as in the back of a room), sound arrives at all angles pretty much with random distribution, and even the best shotguns don't sound very good then. The off-axis frequency response of any shotgun varies rather wildly in between the spot frequencies that are usually shown. It's a necessary consequence of the interference tube principle that they're based on.

There's a lot of evidence that non-professional customers misunderstand what shotgun microphones really are and how they function. This allows less-than-scrupulous manufacturers and dealers to sell shotgun microphones (or microphones that look like shotgun microphones but aren't) to users who want to do what is basically impossible with first-order microphones: to record clear, well-balanced, natural sound when the microphone is simply too far from the sound sources for any such recording to be made.

In that situation a good supercardioid will actually give better results, relatively speaking (since that's all there can be), because the polar pattern will be essentially the same all across the frequency range. The Neumann KM 150 that someone mentioned here is a good choice (or its less-expensive, non-modular counterpart the KM 185); it also has a rolled-off low end that can help to reduce the perception of room problems, and a small but helpful treble peak that helps compensate for absorption losses. Schoeps also makes a supercardioid with low-frequency reduction that's available on special order.

But those are obviously high-end microphones--and still they wouldn't do you nearly as much good as putting the mikes in good places to begin with.

--best regards

[MakersMarc]

Thanks DSatz.....very valuable. Kind of coming to the conclusion that if I can't get where I want to be, which happens really rarely, I'm probably better off just dealing with it rather than tying up more dollars in gear. Or going 

[yug du nord]

find a set of used busman's and try em out..  if not your thing, sell em.  good bang for your buck IMO.
.......not necessarily a "plug"....  but i might be selling my set of bsc1's with 4 capsule patterns since i haven't used em in a couple of years.
they are so versitile though,  i've had a hard time commiting to selling em.
i'll keep you posted if i do.

[acidjack]

Never deny the wisdom of DSatz.

I think you could benefit from a super/hyper those few times a year -- and maybe others too. In roughly that range, if you want a balanced-sounding mic, I'd look at AKG ck63, AKG ck93 (cheaper but not as good as 63s), or the Audio Technica 4053. I've used the 93s and the ATs and really liked the results.

Personally I would avoid the Neumann 150s, which I think of as more of a "special purpose" mic. They strip out a LOT of bass. Very clean sound, very mid-vocal forward, but I'd be sure I liked that sound before I invested that much money in them (and they're out of your range anyway).

[carlbeck]

I'd suggest the MBHO 440's or 200's. Both are cardiods but offer a nice roll of that helps for the back of the room. They are a really nice sounding mic, I prefer them to the 180's & a pair of 440's are pretty reasonably priced.

[MakersMarc]

I've always thought that about 150s but didn't want to rip 'em.

[carlbeck]

I'd also suggest the Berliner CM33's, another card with a roll off that works in the back of the room, well within your budget.

[DSatz]

The 1-meter-on-axis frequency response of the KM 150/185 is attached below (with the KM 145 shown for comparison, since it is specifically sold as a "speech cardioid").

For more distant sound sources, the bass reduction would be greater than shown. Proximity effect affects a microphone more, the more it's based on the pressure-gradient pickup principle rather than the pressure pickup principle--and that means that there's more proximity effect with figure-8, hypercardioid and supercardioid microphones than (for example) cardioids.

HOWEVER, since the polar pattern of the KM 150/185 is essentially the same at all frequencies, it is very amenable to equalization. If you make a recording with them, have no fear of trying to boost the bass in playback or post-production. If the room was better than you anticipated, you can restore more of the missing bass.

But on the third hand, it is remarkable how a smooth, gradual bass rolloff can be acceptable to the ear. That's not to say that the low-frequency energy wouldn't be welcome if it can be returned to the recording; it's just that the reduction can change the illusion without necessarily destroying it, to a degree that might surprise a person. Typically, a classic "speech cardioid" is about -12 dB at 50 Hz in the type of measurement shown, while the KM 150/185 provides about 2/3 of that, which is a useful way to split the difference, I think.

[MakersMarc]

Of all the hundreds of hyper recordings I've listened to, I've most liked in order  Schoeps mk41 and akg 63 for dealing with distance and or high ceiling, overhang, etc.but not rolling off too much bass. Or really much at all in the case of the 41. Great all around cap, if I had Schoeps I'd own that and a pair of mk2s and call it a day. I'm so attached to my 4022s though. My favorite small diaphragm card ever. Place it well and be rewarded.

[MakersMarc]

I'd suggest the MBHO 440's or 200's. Both are cardiods but offer a nice roll of that helps for the back of the room. They are a really nice sounding mic, I prefer them to the 180's & a pair of 440's are pretty reasonably priced.

Ditto on the 200s, I always had good luck far back. Had trouble with Panic up close, felt that the soundstage collapsed under all the spls. Great for everything else tho. Sold them to fund dpas.

[JimmieC]

I would like to mention that ADK TL's (multipattern) sound really good and can be found for relatively cheap.  There used to be a pair in the Yard Sale  http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=173645.0

[BonoBeats]

I would like to mention that ADK TL's (multipattern) sound really good and can be found for relatively cheap.  There used to be a pair in the Yard Sale  http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=173645.0

Agreed. The TL's in hyper setting are my go-to for noisy/boomy indoor shows...

[noahbickart]

Save your money for a used pair of schoeps mk41 capsules. Have Nick build you a "nbob kcy" and use naiant pfas. All in all ~$1500 or so.

Schoeps just lowered their pricing, there are lots on the used market.

the mk41/mk41v is everyone's favorite hyper for a reason. It sounds like a mk4 with more off axis rejection. But unlike most others, the polar pattern is consistent and the *off-axis* response is smooth. So it's directional without sounding unnatural.

A dual capsule LD microphone is really two cardioids back to back. You can fake a hyper pattern with it, but the polar pattern isn't consistent.

[John Willett]

  I was not aware that the KM150 had no bottom to speak of.  Good to know.

The Gefell M310 holds up better at the bottom end - I have attached the response curves of the M310 as well as the Neumann KM150 and KM185 for comparison.

Also - I had not realised that Neumann have now discontinued the KM 100 series - to find the frequency response of the KM150 I had to go to the "Historical Microphones" section on the Neumann website.

[jcb]

Low price and forgiving with reasonable quality (this is rather subjective) : the Audio Technica AT875R might well be worth a try. It cut rather brutally everything below 80Hz by design but that is the same as using a high-pass filter at 80Hz.
The build quality and sound are surprisingly good for the price.

[ashevillain]

Surprisingly, neither of these have been mentioned yet and IMO both should definitely be in this conversation:

Audix M1280
Oktava MK-012

-----

Of course, I'm partial to the AT4053a. I ran those for years, almost exclusively...indoors, outdoors, close or far from the stage. Only place I didn't run them was onstage.

[Gutbucket]

For low budget performance, the AKD TL [edit] ADK TL, although full sized LDC, heavy, and electrically switched rather than a single diaphragm design, is hard to beat.   The super/hyper pattern sounds good and the mics are well regarded by tapers and generally not too hard to find.   I almost always use the TLs in that pattern or as a figure 8, mostly on stage.  Can't comment on their performance from far back in the room from my own experience.

Another which deserves mention as a top performing hypercard on par with the MK41 is the Microtech Gefell M21 capsule, typically specified as the M210 with amplifier body, although they can now be run as actives via the 3rd party solutions around here.  It has excellent pattern behavior and a healthy bass response.  Great microphone IMHO, although not in the specified budget range.  Here's the plots from the MG site:

[thunderbolt]

Sound like a broken record, but Avantone CK-1.  $300/pair with omni, card and hyper caps.  IMO there's nothing that can touch them at this price.

[DSatz]

Gutbucket, the frequency and polar response curves that you posted don't appear to match. Note how at low frequencies the two frequency response curves come much closer to each other than they are in the midrange. That corresponds to a widening of the polar pattern that occurs at low frequencies in all dual-diaphragm cardioids and supercardioids--but that widening isn't shown in the polar graphs (if I understand which frequencies are shown on which graphs). So I suspect that these may be "aspirational" graphs rather than reflections of the microphone's actual performance. (The frequency response in the top octave also looks like no real-world microphone that I've ever seen.)

The progressive widening of pattern means that a coincident or closely-spaced pair of these microphones would pick up more and more strongly correlated (increasingly similar) signals at lower and lower frequencies, i.e. the recording would tend strongly toward being mono in the bass. That's the opposite of what creates any sense of spaciousness in a stereo recording.

A microphone with this type of characteristic could be useful as a soloist's microphone in a relatively dead studio, since it would pick up with clarity from the front in the midrange and above, while letting in more room sound at low frequencies, thus creating a sense of warmth and roundness to balance that clarity. But I wouldn't choose this type of microphone for the kind of live stereo recording that I do, at least.

--best regards

P.S.: Full disclosure: When I wrote this message, I'd missed Gutbucket's statement that the curves are from Microtech Gefell, a manufacturer that I think highly of; I thought they were from ADK (though I was surprised to see multi-frequency polar plots and multi-angle frequency response plots coming from them). I'll leave what I wrote, even though I believe the capsule is single-diaphragm. In that case, the apparent broadening of pattern at low frequencies is simply a shortcoming of the particular acoustical design of this capsule. As I've said elsewhere, it's harder to make a good cardioid than a good omni, and it's even harder to make a good supercardioid than it is to make a good cardioid. OTOH as I also said in this message, there are definite applications for a microphone with this set of characteristics.

[Gutbucket]

Thanks D.  The plots in my post above are from the Microtech Gefell site for the SMS2000 series, from here- http://www.microtechgefell.de/index.php/en/microphones/studio-a-recording/small-membrane-transistor-mics/49-transistormikrofonsystemsms2000. Specifically the M21 hypercardioid capsule.

I was disappointed to find the plots above, currently on the MG site, do not indicate the frequencies of the polars.  It looks to me like that information may have been cut off at the bottom of the images.  In any case the low-frequency polars are left-most and the high frequency polars are on the right.  Upon close examination of them upon reading your post, I can see and relate the high frequency polar behavior to the response graph showing the on-axis and 135 degree off-axis responses.  I can also see how the left most polars do not show the pattern broadening at the lowest frequencies which should correspond to what is seen at the very left side of the on and off-axis response response.  I think that's the mismatch you are noting.

Below are alternate copies of these same M21 polars I have stored on this computer, which do indicate the frequencies for those same polars.   Note that the lowest frequency polar data line is 250Hz, which is just about the point where pattern broadening begins to manifest at low frequencies.  I think that explains the discrepancy.  There simply are not any polar measurements indicated at frequencies where pattern broadening becomes significant down low.  A few questions for you about all this in my next post..

[Gutbucket]

Here's my question based on what you've stated above-

I've long assumed most small diaphragm directional microphones show pattern broadening at the lowest frequencies, and often at higher frequencies as well.  I've assumed that because most of the frequency response data I've seen for various microphones do not show the minimum off-axis response to be an identically shaped line to the on-axis response (minimum response being 180-degree off axis in the case of a cardioid, 135-degree in the frequency plot above for the M210), which would be the case if the polar response was the same at all frequencies.  Instead, I most always see a differently shaped far off-axis curve, usually with sort of a scooped midrange shape, indicating maximal directionality throughout in the midrange, and loss of pattern where the bottom (off-axis) curve becomes closer to the top (on-axis) curve.

Polars often don't show that at low frequencies because they are often not taken at the frequencies at which it occurs.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about (DPA cardioids in this case).  Although obviously smoothed, notice that the off-axis response through 90-degrees off-axis tracks the shape on-axis response closely, just at a lower level.  The 'scooped shape' indicating the pattern widening is only evident in the 180-degree off-axis curve:



The general trend in the shape of the 180 degree off-axis response of the DPA cardioids, is similar to the 135 degree off-axis response of the Gefell M210.  Is this not also the case with the Schoeps MK41?  The polars on the Schoeps site only go down to 1kHz, well above this region of interest, and I can find no off-axis response curves posted at all.

I've looked for this information on the MKH50 and it seems that Sennheiser only publishes on-axis and 90-degree off axis responses, nothing farther off-axis where this kind of behavior would be seen.

Unfortunately I don't have actual response charts for my MG210 pair, but below are actual measured on-axis and 180-degree off-axis responses for a few Gefell cardioids (M94, M20, M300) which the factory provided when I sent these back to for service a few years ago.  All of these show a 'scooped shape' 180-degree off-axis response, with response increasing at the lowest frequencies (and higher frequencies), indicating pattern loss at those frequencies.  These are all very good microphones (along with the DPAs above), generally well regarded for stereo pair recording.  Does this imply they are they all designs with acoustical short comings of the type you describe?

[Gutbucket]

I've never seen off-axis or polars for the large, dual-diaphram ADK TL.  I don't expect they'd look especially pretty, certainly not like high quality SDC responses posted above.  I can only say that in my experience, when used in the super/hyper pattern, the off-axis room sound seems natural to me and hasn't posed a problem.  I can EQ the recordings so that both the on-axis direct stuff and the ambient room stuff work without problems, which to me is an indication of decent off-axis behavior.  That's what doesn't work for me using many lesser performing super/hypers.  They get all weird, peaky and pinched sounding.

[edit] Apologies to those who aren't interested for this somewhat OT sidetrack.  I jump on these opportunities to pick DSatz's thoughts on these things whenever the opportunity presents itself.  I do think it's relevant in figuring out which measurements and specifications are indicative of a hypercardioid sounding subjectively "good" or not.

[Gutbucket]

^^^
The first part jibes with my understanding of basic dipole phenomena and roll-off.  With particular implementations all manipulating that basic phenomena via applied design, construction complexity, and manufacturing of their producers.

As for the application of those tools, the second part squares with my move over the years to a pair of spaced omnis at least in part for 'stereo bottom', plus decently behaved super/hypercards for the top providing sufficient directivity from the mids on up (usually 3 or more of them in odd arrays), when the situation permits that kind of thing.  But of course the real world often intervenes and forces other compromises.

Straight cardioid? eh, has it's place, but it's always seemed something of a compromise pattern for me, neither really one nor the other.  Although if limited to two microphones for stereo, then that compromise may be the most appropriate one.  I get that.

[Gutbucket]

EQing the difference signal (to counter the dipole rolloff).

It's the other way around that I still need to wrap my head around, which is where the need for massive DSP really is unavoidable- using arrays of omnis and a bunch of DSP to form higher order virtual directional patterns via "beam forming" arrays.  Mostly measurement and research applications, with most implementations compromised by noise and/or aliasing issues in terms of music recording.  Although apparently not all, I'm aware of one exception at least.

[2manyrocks]

According to this information posted by Shure, a card, supercard or shotgun should be positioned no farther than 50% of Dc.  Since they list cards, supercards and shotguns in the same breath, is this being overcautious or are they saying something more generally fundamental to the effect that we really can't cheat critical distance with a supercard?

http://shure.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/82/~/critical-distance-and-microphone-placement

[Gutbucket]

Well, that addresses microphones for speech rather than music.  Most taper applications (except some on-stage or stage-lip recording) place the mics beyond the critical distance.

However, it's conclusion is still true:

What if the microphone must be placed farther away than 50% of Dc?
1. Make the room less reflective via acoustical solutions. This will increase Dc. or...
2. Accept the sub-standard audio provided with a >50% of Dc talker to mic distance.
THERE ARE NO OTHER SOLUTIONS!

Except there is.  The solution is getting and mixing in a SBD feed, which technically is equivalent to adding microphones which are much closer than the critical distance, but that's no more of a "cheat" than their circular logic of answer #1.

Basically it confirms that microphone location is the most important variable we have control over.

[DSatz]

Gutbucket, the broadening of cardioid and (often to a lesser degree) supercardioid patterns at low frequencies isn't a matter of small-diaphragm vs. large-diaphragm; it's a matter of single- vs. dual-diaphragm. Small-diaphragm, dual-diaphragm microphones such as the Neumann KM 88 (see attached curves) and Sennheiser's variable-pattern small microphones have this characteristic as much as larger microphones such as the Neumann U 87.

Having large diaphragms just means that at high frequencies, the pattern also becomes narrower. So see, for example, the polar plots of a Neumann U 47 or any of the later microphones that use the same capsule design (I've attached the M 49 and M 50 graphs on a single page; the M 49 used the same M 7 capsule as the U 47, and its "cardioid" polar graph is shown on the upper right of the four in the picture). They're supercardioid at high frequencies, cardioid in the midrange, and wide cardioid in the bass.

The supercardioid pattern of a dual-diaphragm mike is often better than the cardioid pattern at low frequencies, since the rear diaphragm is brought more into play and the combination begins to approach the symmetry of a figure-8 pattern. When you set these microphones all the way to figure-8, their low-frequency polar pattern can be very good if the two halves of the capsule are well matched in their sensitivity.

--best regards

[Gutbucket]

Yes, I understand that, thanks.

My observation and question above refers to single diaphragm designs.  The observation is that the on-axis and far off-axis (taken at the angle of minimum sensitivity) response plots I've seen for single diaphragm SDCs all show similar overall trends- a more or less equal response with basically only a change of sensitivity over the front on-axis centered hemisphere (plot lines are mostly parallel), but with a significant change of response at the far-off axis angle of minimum sensitivity.  That far off axis response seems to have a common trend among all single diaphragm mics for which I can find data- at low frequencies there is of course the the dipole response roll off for all angles of arrival, which becomes more significant as the intended pattern leans more heavily on the pressure-gradient component verses omni, but the response far off-axis at the angle of minimum sensitivity is never a parallel line to the on-axis response.  Although indicating lower sensitivity at all frequencies, that line always slopes upwards to the left rather than paralleling the on-axis downwards sloping response.

Seems to me that all real-world single diaphragm cardioids/supercardioids follow is same general trend.  This can be seen in each of the plots I posted in reply #34 above. I've no doubt excellent engineering can get things closer to the constant directivity idea, and I'd love to see this measurement data for the MK41 if you can point me to it.  I've no doubt that a single diaphragm LDC would behave similarly in this regard. 

[John Willett]

I was disappointed to find the plots above, currently on the MG site, do not indicate the frequencies of the polars.

That's just the thumbnails - click on the picture and they enlarge and show what frequencies they are measured at.

They are shown on the UK site with the frequencies marked - and there tends to be more info. on the UK site than on the German one for many mics.

[Gutbucket]

Thanks John.

[2manyrocks]

Coming back to the original rubber meets the road question of the OP, what are the lo priced hypercards that tapers have found to make an acceptable recording?  Boltman brought up the Avantone CK-1s for $300. Aren't there some hyper caps for AT853s?  How are they? 

I hate to fork over the bucks for mk41s....especially thinking there's no real substitute for being up close and personal with mic placement, but the other part of me really wants to know how far I can push the envelope.

[Gutbucket]

There is a hyper/super cap for the AT853, but I've only used the 853 cardioid and can't offer you an opinion on the other caps.  You might check out whatever Naiant super/hyper Jon is making now, I don't know the model, and haven't used them, but I've heard good things and the price is very attractive.  The aforementioned ADK TL can probably be found for about $4-500 a pair.

I'll also mention a strange microphone I've grown to like a lot, but is not common around here- DPA 4098H.  It's indented as a miniature hanging choir hypercardioid.  It has an odd integral gooseneck mount and features a small interference tube design like a miniature shotgun.  It is very clean and clear sounding and has a good bit of rolloff at the bottom.  I use them in combination with a pair of wide spaced DPA 4060 or 4061 omnis which compensates for that, but I've found they are smooth and well behaved enough that I can bring up what bass is there with EQ when used alone.  For over bassy material the response without EQ correctly can compensate nicely.  Compared to the AT853 cards they are much cleaner and clearer, but with less bottom. It is a low powered mic using a microdot connection like the DPA 406x.  Power it with 5-9Vdc, unbalanced output, comes with a P48 balanced XLR adaptor.

Thread on the microphone-
DPA 4098H miniature supercardioid

My odd use of them-
Oddball mic techniques thread, p141

They've worked so well in my arrays that they are now replacing the undoubtedly superior MG cards and supers even when the weather is beautiful and there is no foul weather threat.  As a stereo pair alone, the MGs dust them, but in the 6 channel arrays, combined with the omnis, they are pretty close.  And in practical terms they are very small, very light, low-powered, more weather resistant, and much less costly.  New they are about $500 each but you might find them used for around $300 each.

Weird one, probably not what most here are looking for, but worth a mention in this thread.

[2manyrocks]

It's better to pull together all the options and then sort through them than to overlook one and later wish we hadn't.  Mainly I'm curious to see what practical use could be made of a hypercard in m/s, but maybe I should grab a mk41 capsule if a single one ever pops up in the YS. 

Another thought is that wireless mixers like the Behringer XRs and the Soundcraft ui16 have built in recording--could stash one and mics up near the stage and hypercards are no longer needed for concert recording at a distance.   

edit:  4098h discontinued replaced by 4081 pair for $1,100? 

[DSatz]

2many, I see the struggle that you're having, and I agree that it would be painful to pay the cost of Schoeps or Neumann "in-between-super-and-hyper-cardioids" (which is what they are) and still have the results be less than satisfactory. What's more, that risk seems very real from where I sit, despite how good those microphones are.

The main thing that I want to warn against is wishful thinking in this situation. Here's an exercise in realism:

Take an omnidirectional microphone. Place it, say, 6 feet from a sound source in a reasonable-sized room. You'll get a certain mixture of direct sound and reverberant (reflected) sound at that distance; depending on the room, it might seem like an ideal mixture to you, or it might be too dry (not enough reverberation) for your taste, or on the contrary, it may be too muddy and washed-out sounding at that distance; I dunno. Whatever you may think of that pickup quality, if you don't like it, you can adjust the miking distance one way or the other. But let's say for the sake of this discussion that you really like the balance at 6 feet with the omni mike.

So the question is, if you take the microphone pattern that does the most that any first-order microphone (the kind we all use) can possibly do to exclude room sound from a recording--how far do you think you could place it from the sound source and get that same quantitative balance of direct vs. reverberant sound? I ask because if you're recording from the back of a room, you could well be 10 or 15 times farther from the sound sources than you really want to be. So do you think that you can get a "distance factor" of 10 or 15 from any first-order directional microphone, relative to an omni?

The answer is that the maximum physically possible distance factor is only 2:1 relative to an omnidirectional microphone. And relative to a cardioid at 6 feet, the maximum physically possible distance factor would only get you about one more foot of miking distance on top of the 6.

So even the best possible microphones (whatever you or I may consider those to be) can't possibly fix the situations that you're talking about. At best, they can provide "palliative care"--making a terrible situation somewhat more tolerable MAYBE, and not make it worse than it absolutely has to be. If you imagine that any microphone can do anything more than that, you are setting yourself up for disappointment and wasted money. There's no technology that can substitute for putting your microphones in at least a somewhat good place acoustically.

--best regards

[2manyrocks]

Thank you.