Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Microphones & Setup => Topic started by: DSatz on May 24, 2015, 03:29:30 PM
-
Hi. As the subject line says, Schoeps has decided to rename its venerable MK 3 omni capsule to "MK 2 XS" so that all Schoeps omni capsules will have an "MK 2" designation of some kind from now on.
The MK 2 XS is the one with flat response in a "diffuse" sound field, i.e. at a distance (and in an environment) where the predominant sound energy is reflected rather than direct--farther from the sound sources than most of us would probably prefer to place our mikes most of the time. It isn't sold in very large quantities, but it has a definite value and purpose.
When you graph a microphone of this type on axis in an anechoic chamber (as microphone frequency response curves nearly always are done), its response curve will show a ~6 dB elevation at high frequencies. But at the prescribed distance in a normally reverberant environment, the high-frequency elevation isn't heard as brightness or hardness, which it would be if the mike were placed more closely. The overall, integrated response (considering all angles of incidence equally) is flat--and in a diffuse sound field, that's what matters; only a small amount of sound energy arrives directly in front of the capsule, and even that sound isn't mostly direct sound.
This type of omni was used more commonly back in the mono era for single-mike pickup of large orchestras, orchestras with chorus and/or soloists, etc., while in the stereo era it is less often used; many people, I think, shy away from using a spaced-omni pickup at that kind of distance. But this is precisely the type of omni that can compensate well for losses due to the high-frequency absorption characteristics of the various surfaces that the sound bounces off of. And especially when add-on spheres are used (such as the Schoeps KA 40), this type of microphone can make recordings with good focus even at surprisingly great distances from the sound sources.
--best regards
P.S.: The other three "MK 2" capsule types are the MK 2 itself--which is flat on axis and therefore suitable mainly for close miking--and the MK 2 H and MK 2 S, the two models that should be the main interest for people here, I think, since they give essentially flat response when the arriving sound has a fairly even mix of direct and reflected energy.
P.P.S.: Schoeps also renamed two of its speech capsules, withdrew one model of speech capsule, and introduced two new types of speech capsules. I can give the specifics if anyone's interested; I use speech capsules often for spot miking, but I don't know how many other people here are concerned about them. On the other hand, a lot of people here use speech capsules without seeming to realize it (many miniature cardioid capsules from Far Eastern manufacturers are in fact speech capsules).
-
When you graph a microphone of this kind on axis, its response curve will show a roughly 6 dB elevation at high frequencies, but at the prescribed difference that elevation is not heard as such, because the rise occurs only in the narrow area directly in front of the capsule, while its overall (integrated) response is essentially flat.
I assume distance was intended in place of the bolded word in the part quoted above.
Thanks for this. If you would, could you confirm my understanding..
1) For all of these omni capsule variants, the relationship between any capsule's on-axis and integrated response is the same. In other words, although the frequency responses of each capsule variant differs, reflecting their different intended applications, the relationship between the on-axis response to the "all directions averaged together" response remains the same for all of them. And since that's true, the difference in response between each of these capsule variants can be emulated using an appropriate EQ filter. Something like a high-frequency shelf filter.
2) By contrast, what will change the relationship between the on-axis and integrated response is the use of the add-on sphere accessories. Because the sphere attachment changes that relationship, it's effect cannot be emulated in the same way with an EQ filter.
The first is an effectively 'one-dimensional' variation in the electrical signal response between capsules, and each can be EQ'd to match the response of the others. The second is a 'multi-dimensional' variation in the physical geometry of the microphone capsule, changing the signal output in ways which are dependent upon the direction of arrival of a sound to the microphone. In that case an EQ adjustment can only emulate the change for sounds arriving from one particular direction, and for all other directions of arrival at the capsule that particular EQ adjustment will not emulate the effect of the sphere attachment.
Correct? Do you see any problems with that explanation? Other than being geeky and wordy? ;)
-
Right, I meant "distance." Thanks for noticing.
And yes, your point #1 is completely correct (as can be seen from the identical polar diagrams for these four capsules), plus your remark about possibly using an equalizer to "translate" among the four variants is exactly on point.
Your point #2 is also completely correct.
I think that you truly understand this stuff, and I'm glad to see it--the "gestalt" of frequency reponse PLUS polar response gives you most of what counts in choosing a microphone for a given situation.
--best regards
-
Bumping an old thread to give an indication of what a pair of mk2xs (formerly mk3) can do:
Phish 2016-07-06 Cross Insurance Arena - Portland, ME Schoeps mk3 OMNI **FOB DFC**
24bit: http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=587493
16bit: http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=587492
-
^Thanks for these, Noah.
What was the approximate spacing between the microphones?
-
They were on a NOS bar, so 30cm at 90 degrees.
Given tha the hf boost correlates with the most directional part of the frequency range I thought it might sound good. And it does!
-
Pulled this and your mk22 recording today to listen tonight.
-
If you really want to hear a good phish tape, check out my mk22 pulls from the Mann. Clamped to the balcony dfc.
http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=587317
http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=587299
-
OT a bit... but loved the MK22's when I had them. Liked the sound of them better than the 41's even though the 41's could cut through the chatter. The 22's just don't get enough love around these parts.
-
OT a bit... but loved the MK22's when I had them. Liked the sound of them better than the 41's even though the 41's could cut through the chatter. The 22's just don't get enough love around these parts.
If you like the mk22, check these out:
http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=587299
http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=587317
-
It is said that you can replicate any Schopes omni color by using one and eq'ing to what you desire. Can you replicate the MK 2 XS diffuse field pickup pattern by eq'ing? Specifically, I use MK2S. I recently compared a few recordings made over a span of 10 years, which I made sitting next to someone who was using DPA-4060's, which have a good high frequency bump. The works recorded where Mahler symphonies. I was stunned by how the DPA 4060's sounded not only brighter and warmer, but also crisper, more detailed, more open and with a bigger, deeper soundstage. The bigger high frequency bump of the DPA-4060's simply picks up a ton more information and make the reading sound like it's a different performance, a much more satisfying one. I assume the MK 2 XS graph is closer to the DPA-4060 than to the MK2S. In fact I now surmise that the secret of the DPA-4060's is that they simply miniaturized the design of the Schoeps MK 3 capsule.
Hence my question - can I get all the lost details on my MK2S tapes by eq'ing? The MK2S are insanely bass heavy and dark, BTW.
-
Yes.
Also. Check this out: http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=593529
-
Hence my question - can I get all the lost details on my MK2S tapes by eq'ing? The MK2S are insanely bass heavy and dark, BTW.
The reason why i sold mine. Just never sounded right to me, maybe its just the loud PA's i record.
Sounded ok outdoors.
-
Can you replicate the MK 2 XS diffuse field pickup pattern by eq'ing? Specifically.
No.
Can I get all the lost details on my MK2S tapes by eq'ing? The MK2S are insanely bass heavy and dark, BTW.
For the most part, yes.
I now surmise that the secret of the DPA-4060's is that they simply miniaturized the design of the Schoeps MK 3 capsule.
That frequency response similarity is not because the designs of the Schoeps and DPAs are the similar. The DPA 4060 simply has a frequency response which is closer to that of the MK3 to start with, before any application of EQ. That's why they sound closer to each other to you than 4060 compared to MK2S.
The frequency response can be adjusted with EQ. So within the dynamic range limits of the microphone, the MK2S can have it's frequency response EQ adjusted to be close to the frequency response of the MK3 or the frequency response of the 4060.
By contrast, the pickup pattern cannot be changed with EQ. For all of these pressure omnis, pickup pattern directivity is mostly related to capsule housing geometry. All the Schoeps omnis use the same physical housing and have the same pattern behavior. They become more directional above the frequency with wavelength corresponding to the diameter of the capsule housing. That frequency is within in the perceptible range - above it the on-axis sound will be have more high frequency content than the off-axis directions. That can be a useful trait in terms of lending "focus" to the main content of interest at which the mic is pointed. The overall balance can be changed however you like with EQ, but the on axis sound will always have more high frequency content than the off-axis sound.
The DPA 4060 housing is considerably smaller. Because of that it remains omnidirectional to a higher frequency, effectively up to as high as we can hear. It doesn't matter as much which way the mic is pointed. That may be a useful trait in terms of lending more "focus" to the ambient content of the room. Again, the overall balance can be changed however you like with EQ, but the on axis sound will always have about high frequency content as the off-axis sound.
So the difference between the on-axis and off-axis response remains constant and cannot be adjusted using EQ. But that directional response difference is a somewhat subtle thing. It's not nearly as obvious as the EQ adjustable overall frequency balance. Also, those subtle pattern differences only apply when the mics are mounted in free space. If they are mounted against something (like your head) then all bets are off. A large nearby object such as that is going to be far more influential than the much smaller relative size difference of the microphone housings. In reality you can adjust perceived qualities like warmth and detail and using EQ. Just keep in mind that by adjusting EQ you are always adjusting both the on-axis and off-axis responses simultaneously, by the same relative amounts.