Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Microphones & Setup => Topic started by: krowllaw on October 09, 2017, 02:09:02 PM
-
It is time to upgrade some equipment and I am a little confused about the different Schoeps offerings. I have quotes for the Schoeps CMC6 + MK4 pair and a pair of the Neumann KM 184s. I will be doing stereo recording primarily in small clubs, theatres and warehouse style venues with bad acoustics. Sometimes I get to mix in two channels from a soundboard feed, all into a Sound Devices MixPre-6.
I didn’t realize all the different capsules available for the Schoeps CMC6. Cardiod, Wide Cardiod, Super Cardiod, etc. I’ve primarily used AKG cardiod and hyper cardiod in the past, but is there a better choice for my situation than the standard MK4 cardiod?
For my purposes, is the Schoeps worth the extra money over the Neumann KM184s? I have a great quote on the Neumanns so that is very tempting.
Will either of these microphone options be suitable and sufficient to go directly into the MixPre-6?
Thanks in advance, I’d really like to spend the money well! I’ve really enjoyed reading all the forum posts and learning. There is a lot of new information since I was active in the recording community 20 years ago!
-
The KM184 is basically a KM140, with a fixed capsule. If you want to be able to swap caps, you should be comparing a Neumann set with a KM100 body. If you do not care about being able to swap caps, then having various different capsules available does not matter.
-
I own (and love!) the 184s. Either the MK4s or 184s will make you great recordings, they are just different flavors of great. I'd dig through archive.org recordings and see which is your favorite. You will hear a lot about Schoeps being muddy, but IMO judicious use of EQ is essential for any good mic.
-
Different mics for different ears. As was suggested already, go onto archive.org and sample different mics and see what sounds best to your ears. Just be sure to use comparable venues and recording locations.
My only suggestion, based on what you are using them for, is to get a directional pair of mics. They don't necessarily have to be hyper cardioids, but somewhere in between that and a cardioid would probably be best for your needs.
As for the mixpre-6, I would ask someone who uses one they way you want to use it. I use a 744T, often recording in the same manner you are, and I can run directly into it using the pre-amp and phantom power when needed, and love it. I would think the mixpre-6 would also have an excellent pre.
-
It is time to upgrade some equipment and I am a little confused about the different Schoeps offerings. I have quotes for the Schoeps CMC6 + MK4 pair and a pair of the Neumann KM 184s. I will be doing stereo recording primarily in small clubs, theatres and warehouse style venues with bad acoustics. Sometimes I get to mix in two channels from a soundboard feed, all into a Sound Devices MixPre-6.
I didn’t realize all the different capsules available for the Schoeps CMC6. Cardiod, Wide Cardiod, Super Cardiod, etc. I’ve primarily used AKG cardiod and hyper cardiod in the past, but is there a better choice for my situation than the standard MK4 cardiod?
For my purposes, is the Schoeps worth the extra money over the Neumann KM184s? I have a great quote on the Neumanns so that is very tempting.
Will either of these microphone options be suitable and sufficient to go directly into the MixPre-6?
Thanks in advance, I’d really like to spend the money well! I’ve really enjoyed reading all the forum posts and learning. There is a lot of new information since I was active in the recording community 20 years ago!
I have MK4's and run them from clubs to stadiums. Great caps.
-
I’ve run a half dozen Schoeps capsules in my time.
If I could only have one pair, it would be the mk22
-
I have been through several sets of Schoeps caps over the past couple years and I finally settled on Mk41s for smaller venues and MK22s for bigger shows. That is not to say I wouldn't mind having a pair of MK5s! It really does come down to your ears and stash of cash.
-
Noah...I was hoping you'd chime in on this, but mainly for the mixpre-6 questions.
-
I just got a pair of Schoeps MK41 hypercard capsules since I record in lots of crappy rooms and they sound great in that scenario.
I used to run a pair of KM140s (the interchangeable cardioid version of the 184) and I thought they did great in better sounding rooms and were a little more forgiving.
If I had to give an opinion on price versus performance the 184s have the edge.
For me the Neumann cardioid caps are in first place, followed by the AKG CK1 capsule. Never been a fan of the Schoeps cardioid MK4 - not sure why, other than they have the "muddy" sound some people refer to. I love the sound of the Schoeps hyper and subcardioid capsules though...
-
I also have been trying various Schoeps capsules. My favorites are the MK22s and Mk4s in smaller venues and the MK41's in larger venues. Not sure where the "muddy" concept comes from.
-
Here is a comp I did earlier this year between MK4's and KM-184. Same stand into the same recorder.
Schoeps MK4 > KC5 > CMC6 > DR-680:
https://archive.org/details/dso2017-02-10.mk4.flac24/dso2017-02-10mk4-set2-24bit02_Uncle_Johns_Band.flac (https://archive.org/details/dso2017-02-10.mk4.flac24/dso2017-02-10mk4-set2-24bit02_Uncle_Johns_Band.flac)
Neumann SKM-184 > DR-680:
https://archive.org/details/dso2017-02-10.km184.flac24/dso2017-02-10km184-set2-24bit02_Uncle_Johns_Band.flac (https://archive.org/details/dso2017-02-10.km184.flac24/dso2017-02-10km184-set2-24bit02_Uncle_Johns_Band.flac)
-
This is all very helpful, thank you very much!
-
Love the Schoeps card sound. MK4, MK4V or MK6
-
I have owned several pairs of both 184s and cmc64s, and both are wonderful. I do mainly classical recording and in that genre, the Schoeps rule due to their flat accurate response. For anything pop/rock/Jazz, the km184s would be my choice. Both sets, being cardioids, will work best with optimal placement, ie in a more near-field situation (up to maybe 20 feet from source). In places where you are a fair distance from the source, hypercards, like the cmc641, or km185 will serve you better because they will do a better job of rejecting extraneous audience noise. Also, before buying new, look for mint used mics - you take a big hit on resale value when you buy new mics. There are always lots of good deals here in the yardsale forum, and from my experience, the TS folks are great people to buy from (they are all pretty much maniacs about their gear, and treat their mics like newborn babies). :lol:
-
I've had fantastic success running a variety of schoeps capsules> Nbob KCY> Naiant PFA> Mixpre6 (sometimes with littlebox> line in on channels 5 & 6).
I'd advise the OP not the buy bodies at all of any manufacturer. The Nbob> Naiant solution (for schoeps, neumann, MG, etc) not only provide significantly more placement/mounting options and low pro possibilities, etc, they are also significantly less expensive. A Nbob KCY is around $550 (pm schoepsnbox) and the PFA (http://naiant.com/studio-electronics-products/inline-devices/pfa-phantom-power-adaptor/) around $150. There is no way you're getting a pair of bodies for that. Let alone bodies & active cables.
As for capsule type, some may prefer Neumann, others MG, DPA, or AKG. It's all preference at that level. I'm a Schoeps head. But not only for sound, but for non sonic reasons. Schoeps makes so many capsules (multiple omnis, subcards, vertical and side address & shotgun), buying into their system likely allows for the best fit to any given room. You save up and add more capsules to your rig, the best way to make a great tape is get to the best location and run the optimal capsules there. I find the mk4v and mk41v vertical capsules to make setup so easy for "what we do" that they win out much of the time for me for me.
Also the mk22 is just the perfect capsule, I never don't run it.
My ideal 2 channel rig would be:
schoeps mk22> nbob kcy> naiant pfa> Mixpre3. You could get the whole thing new for ~$2500. Thats amazing.
-
here are 2 pairs in action
-
Here is a comp I did earlier this year between MK4's and KM-184. Same stand into the same recorder.
Schoeps MK4 > KC5 > CMC6 > DR-680:
https://archive.org/details/dso2017-02-10.mk4.flac24/dso2017-02-10mk4-set2-24bit02_Uncle_Johns_Band.flac (https://archive.org/details/dso2017-02-10.mk4.flac24/dso2017-02-10mk4-set2-24bit02_Uncle_Johns_Band.flac)
Neumann SKM-184 > DR-680:
https://archive.org/details/dso2017-02-10.km184.flac24/dso2017-02-10km184-set2-24bit02_Uncle_Johns_Band.flac (https://archive.org/details/dso2017-02-10.km184.flac24/dso2017-02-10km184-set2-24bit02_Uncle_Johns_Band.flac)
Thanks for posting this Rick. Great recording and an excellent comp!
-
I've had fantastic success running a variety of schoeps capsules> Nbob KCY> Naiant PFA> Mixpre6 (sometimes with littlebox> line in on channels 5 & 6).
I'd advise the OP not the buy bodies at all of any manufacturer. The Nbob> Naiant solution (for schoeps, neumann, MG, etc) not only provide significantly more placement/mounting options and low pro possibilities, etc, they are also significantly less expensive. A Nbob KCY is around $550 (pm schoepsnbox) and the PFA (http://naiant.com/studio-electronics-products/inline-devices/pfa-phantom-power-adaptor/) around $150. There is no way you're getting a pair of bodies for that. Let alone Bodies & active cables.
As for capsule type, some may prefer Neumann, Others MG, DPA, or AKG. It's all preference at that level. I'm a Schoeps head. But not only for sound, but for non sonic reasons. Schoeps makes so many capsules (multiple omnis, subcards, vertical and side address & shotgun), buying into their system likely allows for the best fit to any given room. You save up and add more capsules to your rig, the best way to make a great tape is get to the best location and run the optimal capsules there. I find the mk4v and mk41v vertical capsules to make setup so easy for "what we do" that they win out much of the time for me for me.
Also the mk22 is just the perfect capsule, I never don't run it.
My ideal 2 channel rig would be:
schoeps mk22> nbob kcy> naiant pfa> Mixpre3. You could get the whole thing new for ~$2500. Thats amazing.
Whether you agree with Noah's views on sound or not (I pretty much do, though I prefer the sound of the MK4V over the MK22 in most "actual taping" situations) his points above are key. I've owned most of the major brands at one time or another, and for my money the Schoeps are the most reliable and the most flexible overall system. That has changed somewhat with the advent of the "NBob" system for everything, but if you prefer parts from the original manufacturer (generally, I do) then Schoeps offers by FAR the more superior flexibility options, compared to anything.
You should see what kind of mics you prefer, sound-wise, on your own. Mics are situational, as well, so it depends a lot on your specific situations and how much EQ you like to do. My MBHOs have a more colored sound than Schoeps; they are vastly less "accurate" than the Schoeps, but their sound is perfect for certain situations. Schoeps, to most people's ears, have a somewhat less "neutral" sound than the DPA 40xx line, but a lot of people would find those mics "too" neutral for many situations. But those are just my personal opinions. In my situations, if I had to take one pair and one pair only, it'd be my MK4Vs.
-
... if I had to take one pair and one pair only, it'd be my MK4Vs.
Agreed.
-
I'd listen to rodeen's comp closely and decide the extent to which you hear the differences and which flavor you prefer. That seems like a really good objective reference point in a fairly typical setting. The relative signatures of the mics seem apparent. Nice work there. :clapping: It may depend on your taste a bit.
The point about buying caps only is a really useful one. Newer power options provide a lot more flexibility these days that wasn't really there even a few years ago for most mics.
I listened to a lot of recordings when I came back into this to form an idea of what I should get (never having been a "high end" audio taper - Naks were the best mic I used in audio setups back in the day) and from that decided I wanted Schoeps cards. I was going to buy MK4's but the person on the yard sale I was corresponding with about those (who it turns out was one of the well known semi-legendary tapers of yore) strongly urged me to get his MK4V's instead.
IME he was right about that. They are very versatile and always make a nice recording (even in some really horrid sonic spaces). They always sound better than I think they will (especially when the room sounded bad).
The V's will give you a little crisper sound and perhaps the feel of a little more definition while still providing a real sounding low end and low mids. There are lots of mics that can do well. The extent to which your ears are attuned to the subtleties and how much you value those are the primary differences once you reach a certain point.
-
That has changed somewhat with the advent of the "NBob" system for everything, but if you prefer parts from the original manufacturer (generally, I do) then Schoeps offers by FAR the more superior flexibility options, compared to anything.
Schoeps definitely has many more capsule options, but the DPA modular system also has a lot of flexibility. Full size and compact bodies and P48 (like the old compacts) and PIP active cables...
-
^ No doubt about that aaronji.
I've personally debated back and forth regarding Schoeps vs DPA options in the modern setting, as I'd prefer the DPA route. However, at $1300 per capsule (DPA d:dictate capsules), that is a tough pill to swallow. Even mk4v's new are ~$825/each. Not to mention the inidividual cable costs for DPAs. And there is no used market for the DPA stuff.
I love the variety of options available to us all these days, but I have to constantly remind myself that I'm not (often) recording in the most ideal of scenarios, if at all lately.
/personal ramble
-
I never take cost into account when buying mics. I'm not rich but I wouldn't spend money on something if it wasn't exactly what I wanted.
-
I'm right there with you, Charlie. I have no problem spending the money on "exactly what I want", but I try to be practical as well, given my drop in concert attendance. If I were taping nonstop, then it would be no question.
I wasn't being critical of the cost of Schoeps capsules, rather making the comparison that their cost is more than justified these days with the nBob cables and other accessories available.
-
I'm right there with you, Charlie. I have no problem spending the money on "exactly what I want", but I try to be practical as well, given my drop in concert attendance. If I were taping nonstop, then it would be no question.
I wasn't being critical of the cost of Schoeps capsules, rather making the comparison that their cost is more than justified these days with the nBob cables and other accessories available.
Funny thing about my schoeps, I've had them for 15 years and still only have MK4's. They are more versatile than I had expected. But then again, I wouldn't mind owning some KM140's, or 4011's.
-
a bunch of options from tonight:
Tedeschi Trucks Band
Beacon Theater
New York; NY
October 10, 2017
Source: Schoeps mk22 (21cm @ 110 degrees) > Nbob KCY> Naint PFA> SD mixpre6 +
Schoeps mk8/mk4v (m/s) > Nbob KCY> Naint PFA> SD mixpre6+
Location: FOB, LOC
Transfer: SD Mixpre6> USB-C> Macbook Pro> Reaper (DSP)> Sound Studio (Tracking & Fades)> xAct (Flacing)
Recorded by phishrabbi <noahbickart@gmail.com>
mk22 + mk4v/mk8 (M/S) mp3: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6ecgYs1s6XudUZtS1BDZVFWNkk
mk22 + mk4v/mk8 (M/S) 16bit: http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=595577
mk22 + mk4v/mk8 (M/S) 24bit: http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=595578
mk22 16bit: http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=595579
mk22 24bit: http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=595580
-
I also have been trying various Schoeps capsules. My favorites are the MK22s and Mk4s in smaller venues and the MK41's in larger venues. Not sure where the "muddy" concept comes from.
It comes from a clueless internal mic taper. I run >:D and generally use MK4's when I am in small venues, theaters and outdoors. I run MK41s in stadiums, arenas from about 25 rows back or further and stadiums.
-
Seems that the similarities between Schoeps caps are greater than the differences, I've only owned 4v 41v and 41 and like them all, but for me the go to cap is the 4v for ease of >:D in a Kangol, the bar just fits so well in the cap. I wouldn't really recommend the hyper caps for close up work I do notice the diminished low end, but for distance work love either 41 or 41v.
If you're gonna do stealth work 4v>nbob>naiant IPA>small deck can't be beat. Small deck Like tascam dr2d, Edirol or Sony m10 all of which can still be found with a bit of effort. I'd substitute the MP3 and a pair of pfas if you're not stealthing. As others have said, you can pick up a matched dpair of 4v from Europe for around 1300, nbobs for 600, IPA for 120 and deck for 200 or so, and easily ring in under 2500. Substitute pfas and an MP3 for the IPA/tiny deck and you're still going to come in just a bit over 2500 that is amazing. I don't even want to think about what 4011>v2>benchmark ad>portadat cost me back in the day. You can get 90% of that sound for 1/4 the cost now.
Ymmv but I find the Schoeps genuine cables to be way too stiff for >:D work, I prefer nbobs and have had nothing but reliability.
-
All very helpful, thank you very much! I just found out my distributor contact went on vacation so I have a few more days to think about it. I used to love stealth recording (someone please enhance my JGB final show warfield 4/23/95!) but I’m not sure how often I’ll do it now. I’m waiting to see what discount I get on the Schoeps capsules and that will probably dictate my decision.
Again, thanks so much. I spent two weeks researching and you guys managed to surpass that knowledge in two days.
-
All very helpful, thank you very much! I just found out my distributor contact went on vacation so I have a few more days to think about it. I used to love stealth recording (someone please enhance my JGB final show warfield 4/23/95!) but I’m not sure how often I’ll do it now. I’m waiting to see what discount I get on the Schoeps capsules and that will probably dictate my decision.
Again, thanks so much. I spent two weeks researching and you guys managed to surpass that knowledge in two days.
Schoeps has set pricing so it's hard to ge ta "discount" if you purchase through someone in the US. I also suggest looking into buying them from Europe. My 4v's were $1310 for a matched pair (although the Euro is worth more now)
-
From the OP, my two cents is to make sure (regardless of brand you choose) you get a modular system so that you can change out caps for the given situation. As we all know on here, you may think you only need one polar pattern, but give it a few months and you’ll be itching for others.
-
From the OP, my two cents is to make sure (regardless of brand you choose) you get a modular system so that you can change out caps for the given situation. As we all know on here, you may think you only need one polar pattern, but give it a few months and you’ll be itching for others.
+1
-
I also have been trying various Schoeps capsules. My favorites are the MK22s and Mk4s in smaller venues and the MK41's in larger venues. Not sure where the "muddy" concept comes from.
It likely stems from the general frequency response relative to other OEM's . What I hear from Schoeps is a pronounced low/mid-low/mid frquency spectrum. This can have a tendency to make the mid-highs and highs to sound "buried" in the recording. Of course, this can be corrected with Eq, if that is one's preference.
If I were to spend several $K on a set of mics, I'd go with the MG's hands down. But as I say, it's a matter of personal preference.
-
From the OP, my two cents is to make sure (regardless of brand you choose) you get a modular system so that you can change out caps for the given situation. As we all know on here, you may think you only need one polar pattern, but give it a few months and you’ll be itching for others.
+1
This. Whether you go with Schoeps, AKG, Neumann, Gefell or other caps that can be run with "actives", don't mess with bodies, pick up your caps of choice and build a modular solution around them. Flexible and small and great sounding.
-
Lots of good advice in this thread, especially to go active cables route.
I had never heard the "schoeps are muddy" phrase until reading the occasional comment on TS from time to time, which was counter to what my ears have been telling me for the past couple decades. Never got that one since what i love about the schoeps "sound" is that touch of sweetness in the highs on most of the collette line.
-
Never was a big schoeps fan.....until I finally bought an mk4v > nbob/naiant Pfa setup out of the yardsale on a whim and gotta say prob the best purchase ive made! ALWAYS a great pull the HF bump with the 4v's is ideal for the venues I roll in. Lots of options as others have mentioned.
-
I also have been trying various Schoeps capsules. My favorites are the MK22s and Mk4s in smaller venues and the MK41's in larger venues. Not sure where the "muddy" concept comes from.
It comes from a clueless internal mic taper. I run >:D and generally use MK4's when I am in small venues, theaters and outdoors. I run MK41s in stadiums, arenas from about 25 rows back or further and stadiums.
Acyually that was me and I'm not clueless or an internal mic taper :o
I'm really happy with my mk41s but I find that the MK4 when used from any sort of distance or used to record amplified rock music (which is most of what I do) sounds way too bassy. If I was going with a cardioid mic it would not be the MK4. Up close, onstage in ORTF, jazz combos with no subwoofers...all of those situations the MK4 would shine but in a concert hall with a PA from the crowd I just think they sound "tubby". IMHO, YMMV, etc....
-
I also have been trying various Schoeps capsules. My favorites are the MK22s and Mk4s in smaller venues and the MK41's in larger venues. Not sure where the "muddy" concept comes from.
It comes from a clueless internal mic taper. I run >:D and generally use MK4's when I am in small venues, theaters and outdoors. I run MK41s in stadiums, arenas from about 25 rows back or further and stadiums.
Acyually that was me and I'm not clueless or an internal mic taper :o
I'm really happy with my mk41s but I find that the MK4 when used from any sort of distance or used to record amplified rock music (which is most of what I do) sounds way too bassy. If I was going with a cardioid mic it would not be the MK4. Up close, onstage in ORTF, jazz combos with no subwoofers...all of those situations the MK4 would shine but in a concert hall with a PA from the crowd I just think they sound "tubby". IMHO, YMMV, etc....
I'm not sure "muddy" is a good analogy but I understand the statement - they do have a very strong bass/mid presentation.
-
I also have been trying various Schoeps capsules. My favorites are the MK22s and Mk4s in smaller venues and the MK41's in larger venues. Not sure where the "muddy" concept comes from.
It comes from a clueless internal mic taper. I run >:D and generally use MK4's when I am in small venues, theaters and outdoors. I run MK41s in stadiums, arenas from about 25 rows back or further and stadiums.
Acyually that was me and I'm not clueless or an internal mic taper :o
I'm really happy with my mk41s but I find that the MK4 when used from any sort of distance or used to record amplified rock music (which is most of what I do) sounds way too bassy. If I was going with a cardioid mic it would not be the MK4. Up close, onstage in ORTF, jazz combos with no subwoofers...all of those situations the MK4 would shine but in a concert hall with a PA from the crowd I just think they sound "tubby". IMHO, YMMV, etc....
I'm not sure "muddy" is a good analogy but I understand the statement - they do have a very strong bass/mid presentation.
It is a common statement, often made by people whose preference is for the sound of less-expensive mics. It's not limited to Schoeps; they just happen to be among the most accurate/best bass response mics. Cheaper mics tend to roll the bass off (at least, cheaper cardiod mics). The DPA 402x series are probably the "cleanest" or "most accurate" sounding of all mics, neither emphasizing nor deemphasizing any frequency, and I think some DPA fans criticize the Schoeps sound on that basis (though I'd argue that the DPAs sound considerably more awful in a not-ideal situation than Schoeps do, YMMV and all).
Really if someone records amplified rock music that isn't flawlessly mixed almost all the time (IME, this applies to roughly Phish and maybe MMJ), an accurate recording from one of the typical locations will probably sound somewhat "bad," especially if lots of LF pickup is considered bad.
BTW that doesn't mean preferring the sound of inexpensive mics is "wrong." On a cheap system, or computer speakers, it's probably true that the sound of un-EQ'd inexpensive mics does sound better than Schoeps some of the time.
-
Cheaper mics tend to roll the bass off (at least, cheaper cardiod mics).
I'd suggest it is more a continuum from (potentially) rolling off to just not capable of recording it fully. Cheaper stealth mics are typically smaller. Smaller mics cannot physically capture the same low end response as larger diameter mics.
I do find the discussion of muddiness odd since I have found that most listeners taste leans way more to room reverberation than mine do. A lot of listeners are used to the big PA mid-room wash and feel cheated if they don't hear that, though it is far muddier than I like to listen to.
The DPA 402x series are probably the "cleanest" or "most accurate" sounding of all mics, neither emphasizing nor deemphasizing any frequency, and I think some DPA fans criticize the Schoeps sound on that basis (though I'd argue that the DPAs sound considerably more awful in a not-ideal situation than Schoeps do, YMMV and all).
I'm not a DPA fan. The 406x in the typical use sound (for real) muddy (to me) {those do seem to have the most low end presence for small mics} but the DPA bass instrument mic when mounted on a double bass sounds a little thin (to me). So I've not really heard what I like...
-
Really if someone records amplified rock music that isn't flawlessly mixed almost all the time (IME, this applies to roughly Phish and maybe MMJ), an accurate recording from one of the typical locations will probably sound somewhat "bad," especially if lots of LF pickup is considered bad.
As a DPA taper, I have to agree. But this just gives me extra incentive to jump on the presales for larger venues like arenas so I end up taping from 20 rows or closer more often than not.
And for shows like Phish or Dead and Company, I don't think I'll ever do a back of arena floor tape again for this reason.
I'm not a DPA fan. The 406x in the typical use sound (for real) muddy (to me) {those do seem to have the most low end presence for small mics} but the DPA bass instrument mic when mounted on a double bass sounds a little thin (to me). So I've not really heard what I like...
There's a big difference in sound between 406x and 402x series. I wouldn't write off all DPA mics just based on listening to the 406x.
-
Cheaper mics tend to roll the bass off (at least, cheaper cardiod mics).
I'd suggest it is more a continuum from (potentially) rolling off to just not capable of recording it fully. Cheaper stealth mics are typically smaller. Smaller mics cannot physically capture the same low end response as larger diameter mics.
Are you suggesting that you need a larger diameter mic (eg. DPA) to handle heavy bass and record it clean? I'm curious what you consider to small of a diaphragm to handle serious bass.
-
Cheaper mics tend to roll the bass off (at least, cheaper cardiod mics).
I'd suggest it is more a continuum from (potentially) rolling off to just not capable of recording it fully. Cheaper stealth mics are typically smaller. Smaller mics cannot physically capture the same low end response as larger diameter mics.
Are you suggesting that you need a larger diameter mic (eg. DPA) to handle heavy bass and record it clean? I'm curious what you consider to small of a diaphragm to handle serious bass.
Well note that I said *cardiod* mic in the original statement. Tiny omnis like 4061s and B3s, and even the inexpensive Primo and Panasonic capsules in the Sonic Studios, Church Audio and Coresound mics, capture extended bass just fine. With most cardiod mics, there's a noticeable falloff if the capsule is less than the standard 20-22cm diameter of standard commercial mics. Even if you look at DPA's own small hyper, for example, it's pretty rolled off in the LF. Even look at the frequency response for the AT853, which is at least a little larger than a truly small mic. http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wired_mics/b95ae65cb5585585/index.html
-
{We did cross post this and the next one I think. I defer to GB in terms of the theory, which he knows a lot more about than I. I go by my ears and perceptions, though do try to state my opinions up front and offer the experiences or observations that formed those opinions.}
Cheaper mics tend to roll the bass off (at least, cheaper cardiod mics).
I'd suggest it is more a continuum from (potentially) rolling off to just not capable of recording it fully. Cheaper stealth mics are typically smaller. Smaller mics cannot physically capture the same low end response as larger diameter mics.
Are you suggesting that you need a larger diameter mic (eg. DPA) to handle heavy bass and record it clean? I'm curious what you consider to small of a diaphragm to handle serious bass.
Well the evidence seems to be that in correlation with pattern and consideration of our usage that once the diaphragm gets too small a mic {GB knows a lot more about this than I do so:} the mics available to us cannot record the low end nearly as fully or as well as larger diameter mics.
"Handling heavy bass" is an approximate term since one way to handle it is not to record all of it. Max SPL (which is the first consideration in "handling" loud bassy shows as I think of it) seems a different question than accuracy.
Obviously the standard diameter of "pencil" mic capsules like Schoeps is still pretty small and plenty of people use them or components in lo-pro settings.
The small DPAs (406x), which are much smaller diameter (5.4 mm their site says), to my ear record a lot of bass (probably to some extent more fully than anything else of their diameter) but I'm just not convinced they do that accurately or in an entirely balanced way. When you get to the less expensive tiny clip on mics they definitely don't have the same capabilities and the low end is lacking (though as noted below that may be a design feature or manufacturer's intent rather entirely a physical limitation). At a certain size the recorded evidence suggests what's available just doesn't represent the low end properly. Sometimes that feature works pretty well for many shows though, especially in an audience taping PA driven scenario.
The DPA 402x recommended above in more than one post are 19 mm diameter.
There seems to be a reason high end cardioid mics with flat responses (and high end mics in general) are at least a certain size (the 20-ish mm diameter is about as small as the best ones, including Schoeps, go and many are considerably larger diameter than that).
I'm convinced that level of quality has not been designed or achieved at 5mm or 3mm. Maybe perhaps it could be but I'd suggest the aural evidence is at minimum that no manufacturer is designing high end tiny mics like that for our small market. Could they? Could they do it at a price point they'd sell any? Not so sure.
I am as I said not really a DPA fan likely because I've heard a lot of recordings with them misapplied (omnis used in the mid or back of a large crowd in a toilet bowl sounding environment). I will also say I have heard a few recordings with them that I've liked. That may get back to the sentiment that they aren't well matched to bad locations in crappy sounding rooms.
-
[I moved this post here as it addresses the one above, which was posted almost simultaneously]
I will correct a few errors-
Cheaper mics tend to roll the bass off (at least, cheaper cardiod mics).
Although the two factors may often be correlated in the mics we have available, there is no direct causation. The real deal with regards to low-frequency extension has little to do with cost. It's really a secondary association based on other things. The value of higher quality mics is mostly evident in other specifications such as self-noise, overload-level, and especially smoothness of response and pattern behavior.
There are not really many mics (any outside of our boutique taper mic builders?) made with the intention of recording a PA from somewhere in the center of a room. Mics are designed for other purposes and we choose the ones best suited for what we do.
Most small inexpensive mics are built for use very close to the source- either mounted directly on the talent or an instrument, or very close to them. Even hanging choir mics are designed for use relatively close to the source. If they didn't have a sufficiently tapered off low end response, proximity effect would make them all sound like mud for their intended purposes.
Even most really high quality directional mics are not designed to have especially extended low frequency response because that does not benefit their typical use. Classical guys generally use omnis or subcards when they are especially interested in the lowest octave. Because of their unique operating principle Sennheiser rf mics require equalization in their amplifier, so they do use that to extend the bass respose of their cardioids somewhat more than most other quality mics.. yet not that many tapers use them (they also sound subjectivity a bit darker up top to my ear than Schoeps/DPA/Neumann/Gefell, which probably has more to do with any general preference of tapers).
Sure, to some degree good frequency extension is related to the quality of the microphone, but it is far more commonly related to design intent of the microphone and it's target market (which is almost never tapers).
Smaller mics cannot physically capture the same low end response as larger diameter mics.
Not true, yet a common misconception. Microphones are signal transducers, not power transducers. There is no correlation what so ever between a mic's size and it's frequency sensitivity (there is a direct correlation between size and self-noise, and more complexly a connection to directivity). This misunderstanding probably comes from the reproduction side of things where the impedance mismatch between a driver and the air it is trying to move becomes significant - sufficient coupling for decent power transfer at low frequencies requires an increasingly larger surfaced driver (or increasingly larger excursions, and that only works if the driver is "large enough").
The 406x in the typical use sound (for real) muddy (to me) {those do seem to have the most low end presence for small mics} but the DPA bass instrument mic when mounted on a double bass sounds a little thin (to me). So I've not really heard what I like...
The DPA bass instrument mic is a miniature super/hypercard. It's lowest frequency sensitivity rolls off partly due to pattern as any super/hyper card will. But it is intended for close-mic'ing were proximity effect comes strongly into play so DPA doesn't extend the low frequency response as much as they could, with the intent of balancing the proximity effect boost. A 406x omni used in the same position will be far more sensitive to low frequency information. BTW, the DPA bass instrument mic is the same mic as their miniature guitar mic, trumpet mic, piano mic, choir mic, and podium mic. I use it as a miniature super/hypercard in combination with 406x to extended the bass response.
I find most omnis sound similarly muddy in many situations due to their response flatness, and find I often need to use EQ to get the midrange and presence-range sounding correct. Most tapers I've heard express dislike for the 406x sound complain of an overly peaked or strident top end.. which is an intentionally non-flat response designed to address the intended application and market of the microphone- use on-talent.
-
Cheaper mics tend to roll the bass off (at least, cheaper cardiod mics).
I'd suggest it is more a continuum from (potentially) rolling off to just not capable of recording it fully. Cheaper stealth mics are typically smaller. Smaller mics cannot physically capture the same low end response as larger diameter mics.
Are you suggesting that you need a larger diameter mic (eg. DPA) to handle heavy bass and record it clean? I'm curious what you consider to small of a diaphragm to handle serious bass.
Well note that I said *cardiod* mic in the original statement. Tiny omnis like 4061s and B3s, and even the inexpensive Primo and Panasonic capsules in the Sonic Studios, Church Audio and Coresound mics, capture extended bass just fine. With most cardiod mics, there's a noticeable falloff if the capsule is less than the standard 20-22cm diameter of standard commercial mics. Even if you look at DPA's own small hyper, for example, it's pretty rolled off in the LF. Even look at the frequency response for the AT853, which is at least a little larger than a truly small mic. http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wired_mics/b95ae65cb5585585/index.html
OK. I was asking, not because of the Church Audio's, but because the Nak 700's are a smaller than average diaphragm cardioid mic, and they can handle just about anything a band can throw at them (trust me on this one, I've made many tapes/recordings that I thought for sure would distort. Now, I just smile knowing they can handle it).
I've resisted commenting further on this thread, but enjoying the comments nonetheless, because it is primarily a Schoeps thread at this point...but truth be known, I'd take my 700's over Schoeps 9/10 times. Don't get me wrong, Schoeps (and DPA's) are fantastic mics, but I feel that the 700's are better rounded for what I do.
-
OK. I was asking, not because of the Church Audio's, but because the Nak 700's are a smaller than average diaphragm cardioid mic, and they can handle just about anything a band can throw at them (trust me on this one, I've made many tapes/recordings that I thought for sure would distort. Now, I just smile knowing they can handle it).
I've resisted commenting further on this thread, but enjoying the comments nonetheless, because it is primarily a Schoeps thread at this point...but truth be known, I'd take my 700's over Schoeps 9/10 times. Don't get me wrong, Schoeps (and DPA's) are fantastic mics, but I feel that the 700's are better rounded for what I do.
True. The 700's are really good for what we do. Not made in many years and pretty much hen's teeth so perhaps not directly on the original question.
I know some of my favorite audience tapes of the 80's were from Nak 700's (there weren't a lot of high end mics in regular use at that point I don't think). I still remember well a guy hand holding a pair next to us on the floor at the Blue Notes Jones Beach show, which was the first time I'd seen them.
I still think Naks should be made. That was a sad day when they stopped... For the money they were great for what we do.
I guess they broke the molds in some ways for what that was worth (maybe not much depending on why they stopped). The diameter of the 700's is small but for whatever reason the bodies are larger. I'm not entirely sure they match up on specs to the high end mics but I do think they (even the 100s and 300's) were well adjusted to some of what we do (particularly the loud PA and crowd in a barn type shows). If I A/B'd them to my typical use these days I think they'd fall short. I know the 100/300's aren't there in my current applications, but they can still make a relatively pleasing recording (which gets back to an earlier aspect of this discussion).
-
I taped a lot of phish shows in the mid-to- late 90s with nak 100 shotguns based on listening to tons of dead shows taped with 300/100s, and loved them for arena shows. So much side/rear rejection. They were probably slightly better suited for GD due to the way phil's bass tended to be mixed and response of the naks, especially in the low frequencies...Definitely not a smooth response by any stretch but there were no shortage of nice recordings made with that set up. Once i heard them side by side vs mk41's though, i was hooked on the 41s
-
OK. I was asking, not because of the Church Audio's, but because the Nak 700's are a smaller than average diaphragm cardioid mic, and they can handle just about anything a band can throw at them (trust me on this one, I've made many tapes/recordings that I thought for sure would distort. Now, I just smile knowing they can handle it).
I've resisted commenting further on this thread, but enjoying the comments nonetheless, because it is primarily a Schoeps thread at this point...but truth be known, I'd take my 700's over Schoeps 9/10 times. Don't get me wrong, Schoeps (and DPA's) are fantastic mics, but I feel that the 700's are better rounded for what I do.
True. The 700's are really good for what we do. Not made in many years and pretty much hen's teeth so perhaps not directly on the original question.
I know some of my favorite audience tapes of the 80's were from Nak 700's (there weren't a lot of high end mics in regular use at that point I don't think). I still remember well a guy hand holding a pair next to us on the floor at the Blue Notes Jones Beach show, which was the first time I'd seen them.
I still think Naks should be made. That was a sad day when they stopped... For the money they were great for what we do.
I guess they broke the molds in some ways for what that was worth (maybe not much depending on why they stopped). The diameter of the 700's is small but for whatever reason the bodies are larger. I'm not entirely sure they match up on specs to the high end mics but I do think they (even the 100s and 300's) were well adjusted to some of what we do (particularly the loud PA and crowd in a barn type shows). If I A/B'd them to my typical use these days I think they'd fall short. I know the 100/300's aren't there in my current applications, but they can still make a relatively pleasing recording (which gets back to an earlier aspect of this discussion).
The 100's, in my opinion, were a true bottom line mic, even though they were as good as most when they came out. The 300's were an excellent mic, but the batteries were a pain in the ass to get (I had a pair), and are now so more than ever. People are modifying them to use 48V phantom, and I'd be very interested in hearing how they sound. The 700's in my rather biased opinion, are fantastic and do very much hold up to todays higher standards. As forgiving as they are, they zero in on the source very nicely and hold their own sonically...and can handle all levels of bass without concern (of course I tend to set my levels to peak around -6db in order to have plenty of head room - and for an unruly audience!). I've A/B'd them often with Schoeps, B&K's, DPA's, MG's, AKG's, Neumann's, etc., usually from a recording made in the same location, and I'm still very happy with them. BTW, if I were to pick up another pair of mics for concert recording, it wouldn't be Schoeps or DPA's, I'd get a pair of Microtech Gefell's...
Oh, and assuming you're talking about Neil Young and the Bluenotes at Jones beach, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that was me :bigsmile:
-
I taped a lot of phish shows in the mid-to- late 90s with nak 100 shotguns based on listening to tons of dead shows taped with 300/100s, and loved them for arena shows. So much side/rear rejection. They were probably slightly better suited for GD due to the way phil's bass tended to be mixed and the non-flat response of the naks, especially in the low frequencies...Definitely not ruler flat response by any stretch but there were no shortage of nice recordings made with that set up. Once i heard them side by side vs mk41's though, i was hooked on the 41s
It's silly to compare shotguns with a cardioid. The response of a shotgun simply can't compare. I used the 300's with shotguns plenty of times, but in my learning days, where I'd experiment with virtually every patter and configuration known, I came to the conclusion that I was happier with the cp-1 capsules. I won't even go into the 700's shotguns since the 300's guns were exponentially better. I do agree that the Naks were very well suited for Dead show...and in my opinion, still are. I thought about buying Schoeps many times, they're great mics, I just didn't see enough of a difference to justify the cost, and felt happier with the overall performance of the Nak 700's. To each their own, and all that.
-
Before I let it go, this thought came to mind as a better way to make the point on the small mics and bass thing-
It would be trivial to build a cheap omni microphone which senses down to zero Hz, outputting DC at that point. A tiny sensor on an electronic barometer chip does so for pennies. There is no market for one and it would be problematic anyway. You'd get large DC offsets with any atmospheric pressure changes!
What is easily possible and what is available are two different things often only tangentially related.
Tapers get the table scraps of the larger recording gear manufacturing world. Naks are a good example of mics that happen to be rather well suited to recording as many here at TS do it. Fortunately mics generally intended for other applications can still do a good job, and we can further manipulate things to get the results we want from them. That's why I'm actually less concerned with the raw sound from any microphone than how malleable that sound is to my manipulation via EQ or whatever - how easily can I get it to do what I want - and that aspect does seem to be directly correlated with mic quality in my experience.
That's not to say I dismiss the choice of mics based entirely on their raw sound so that EQ needn't be applied. I totally get that and it's super valuable to someone who doesn't want to have to do that work. It is perhaps the most important gear selection criteria. It's just that the biggest factor influencing peoples impression of the raw microphone sound is far and away frequency response*, and because I'm almost always going to EQ my recordings regardless, that aspect no longer becomes the most important factor in choosing between micss. So the convenience of not having to EQ some recordings in order to be totally happy with them isn't the most valuable to me. *(actually a somewhat more complicated combination of the on-axis and off-axis responses)
So when many tapers get to the point were they are investing in quality mics, they are super intent on the native raw sound differences between the top contenders. It's small details in the sound heard which become the critical thing in choosing between Schopes vs DPA, Gefell, Neuman, or whatever. And that's as it should be.
I've found that mics from any of those top manufacturers allow me to get what I want from them with the manipulation I'm going to be ding to the recording anyway. So things other than raw response become more important deciding factors, including options, price, powering, weather resistance, etc.
I can't say the same for lesser mics, which don't let me achieve the same quality regardless of my manipulations, and that, rather that native sound or cost is essentially why I categorize them as "lesser" rather than "greater".
That said, and all else being equal, the mk22 is my favorite Schoeps cap sound wise, along with the 4015 on the DPA side. But the differences in sound at that level of quality is dominated by pickup pattern above most everything else, if a super/hyper is needed that's more important, in that case the MG21 is my top cap (mk41 a close second)
Worse than the table scraps mic situation are the recorders and other gear. Mics are at least single-aspect elements for the most part, where good general-purpose excellence allows them to be adapted to widely diverse applications. But I bet we'd all redesign recorders far differently if we could for our specific use. I know I would!
-
..I've A/B'd them often with Schoeps, B&K's, DPA's, MG's, AKG's, Neumann's, etc., usually from a recording made in the same location, and I'm still very happy with them. BTW, if I were to pick up another pair of mics for concert recording, it wouldn't be Schoeps or DPA's, I'd get a pair of Microtech Gefell's...
nak700s, given what you've posted, I think you should start a search for a pair of the elusive Nak1000s.
Then again, I dig my MG's, you won't go wrong there.
-
Before I let it go, this thought came to mind as a better way to make the point on the small mics and bass thing-
It would be trivial to build a cheap omni microphone which senses down to zero Hz, outputting DC at that point. A tiny sensor on an electronic barometer chip does so for pennies. There is no market for one and it would be problematic anyway. You'd get large DC offsets with any atmospheric pressure changes!
What is easily possible and what is available are two different things often only tangentially related.
Tapers get the table scraps of the larger recording gear manufacturing world. Naks are a good example of mics that happen to be rather well suited to recording as many here at TS do it. Fortunately mics generally intended for other applications can still do a good job, and we can further manipulate things to get the results we want from them. That's why I'm actually less concerned with the raw sound from any microphone than how malleable that sound is to my manipulation via EQ or whatever - how easily can I get it to do what I want - and that aspect does seem to be directly correlated with mic quality in my experience.
That's not to say I dismiss the choice of mics based entirely on their raw sound so that EQ needn't be applied. I totally get that and it's super valuable to someone who doesn't want to have to do that work. It is perhaps the most important gear selection criteria. It's just that the biggest factor influencing peoples impression of the raw microphone sound is far and away frequency response*, and because I'm almost always going to EQ my recordings regardless, that aspect no longer becomes the most important factor in choosing between micss. So the convenience of not having to EQ some recordings in order to be totally happy with them isn't the most valuable to me. *(actually a somewhat more complicated combination of the on-axis and off-axis responses)
So when many tapers get to the point were they are investing in quality mics, they are super intent on the native raw sound differences between the top contenders. It's small details in the sound heard which become the critical thing in choosing between Schopes vs DPA, Gefell, Neuman, or whatever. And that's as it should be.
I've found that mics from any of those top manufacturers allow me to get what I want from them with the manipulation I'm going to be ding to the recording anyway. So things other than raw response become more important deciding factors, including options, price, powering, weather resistance, etc.
I can't say the same for lesser mics, which don't let me achieve the same quality regardless of my manipulations, and that, rather that native sound or cost is essentially why I categorize them as "lesser" rather than "greater".
That said, and all else being equal, the mk22 is my favorite Schoeps cap sound wise, along with the 4015 on the DPA side. But the differences in sound at that level of quality is dominated by pickup pattern above most everything else, if a super/hyper is needed that's more important, in that case the MG21 is my top cap (mk41 a close second)
Worse than the table scraps mic situation are the recorders and other gear. Mics are at least single-aspect elements for the most part, where good general-purpose excellence allows them to be adapted to widely diverse applications. But I bet we'd all redesign recorders far differently if we could for our specific use. I know I would!
Well said, and a good explanation of my own motives. I do not EQ my recordings at all. I strive for the closest to the sound I hear live, and like the 7's for that reason...as well as their flexibility.
-
..I've A/B'd them often with Schoeps, B&K's, DPA's, MG's, AKG's, Neumann's, etc., usually from a recording made in the same location, and I'm still very happy with them. BTW, if I were to pick up another pair of mics for concert recording, it wouldn't be Schoeps or DPA's, I'd get a pair of Microtech Gefell's...
nak700s, given what you've posted, I think you should start a search for a pair of the elusive Nak1000s.
Then again, I dig my MG's, you won't go wrong there.
If I remember correctly, the 1000's have the same specs, and for all purpose and intent, are the same mic. I have no idea why they made them, unless it was that one was no longer being made, so they made the other one. It's puzzling.
-
The 700 was electret and the 1000 is a true condenser.
-
TS member Spyder 9 is a long time Nak guy who moved from the 700s to 1000s. I became aware of the 1000s through him (he's local to me). Maybe ping him for details. Of what I've heard from him I prefer the 1000.
I have no idea if they are true condensers or not, so I'll defer to Larry on that, and it may well be relevant in this case as all Naks are decades old now. 40 or 50 years ago when electret tech was less advanced externally polarized condensers were almost always superior to eletrets. These days, that particular differentiation no longer necessarily applies. Yes, most lower cost and miniature mics are eletrets, but so are some of the very top quality mics. All DPA mics use back-electret diaphragms, even the fancy 130V powered ones.
This is something rooted in a historic truth that is now sort of like the thing with small mics and bass - it ain't necessarily so. But because most folks people think it matters at a more fundamental level than it does, manufacturers will continue give the people what they say they want, regardless if it makes a difference or not. The what's possible verses what is available thing again.
I like that eletrets don't require any polarization voltage applied - they can be run from simpler low voltage supplies, and that the quality ones I use are far less delicate than my quality externally polarized "true" condensers.
-
Ran 4011s and then 4022 for almost twenty years, I love them.....in a great environment. Off center, a little far away, in a sketchy room they can be almost useless. I can't remember ever outperforming a room.
With Schoeps on the other hand, much more forgiving. I ran way left of center front row balcony for Jason Isbell last month, for example, and the sound wasn't great at all. Love the recording, really surprised me. DPA 40xx are just so much touchier. I'd take them every time I'm a good room close and centrally located, but that just doesn't happen all the time. Add the sketchy actives and I had to make the change.
http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=595375
-
I know at some point on another discussion we ended up at the "in post witj enough processing work you can make most mics sound like any other or make most mics sound like something specific" point.
Maybe true though it depends on how skilled one is in post processing and how much effort one wants to invest in each show.
I'm a little of the opinion that some degree of balance and naturalness tends to get lost with aggressive post processing but as with any of this YMMV...
Most of us basically agree on most aspects but each have our particular preferences and goals and preferred methods. It seems generally sound to start with something that in a raw state is closer to one's general taste. That is what keeps all these manufacturers in business...
-
Good points. Schoeps do seem more forgiving generally, and are in my way of thinking the top choice for "straight to tape". There is good reason Schoeps has the reputation it does in the taper community.
Okay, time to demystify a few Schoeps exotics. Anyone know of any tapers every using any of these? Cost of entry for any of them is a bit of a hurdle for taper mortals.
SuperCMIT- Perhaps the ultimate shotgun. Doesn't sound gun-like in the samples I've heard, with cleaner rejection off axis than any other. Thinking this would make for the ultimate center channel microphone in my oddball array. At least I'd only need one of them for that.
KFM 6 sphere- Anyone know of any taper using one? I'd like to hear that. Seems like it would be best at the stage-lip or on-stage.
KFM 360- I was long intrigued by this system and schemed for years about how to emulate something similar in a hat. Potential for an ultimate stealth arrangement. Sort of lost interest when I moved on to other multi-channel arrays, perhaps ironic now that I have a small enough pair of bidirectionals and could actually rig something up to try it. Would love to play around with the matrixing on something recorded with it. Saw one setup at a local university years ago for one of their classical performances. I think I posted a photo at TS somewhere.. Found it here, the thing in the middle between the A-B spaced omnis- (https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=170292.msg2118541#msg2118541)
(http://taperssection.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=123523.0;attach=94363;image)
(http://taperssection.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=123523.0;attach=94365;image)
-
I always liked the MGs. What model should I consider for rock recordings in small venues?
-
Well, since this is a Schoeps focues thread, consider MK4 (cardioid) or MK41 (supercardioid) or the 'V' variants of those which indicate side-address rather than end-address.
The semi-equivalent Microtech Gefell microphones would be their SMS2000 system of interchangeable caps and micbodies with M20 (cardioid) or M21 (supercard) capsules, or their M200 (cardioid) and M210 (supercard) non-interchangeable-capsule microphones.
The M21 is similar to the MK41 in the top quality supercardioid category.