Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?  (Read 21075 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline (Evan)

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 231
So after using AT853's with various capsules for many years, I think it's time to upgrade.

I'm mainly a stealth musical theatre taper, and I almost always making binaural recordings with omnis secured near my ears. Crowd noise is never an issue in musical theatre, so omni caps have served me very well.

I'm interested in moving to either AKG or Schoeps caps with active cables and an Nbox/Tinybox/whatever into my PCM-D50.

For my purposes, can you guys point me in the best direction for what I want to do?

Offline Scooter123

  • "I am not an alcoholic. I am a drunk. Drunks don't go to meetings."
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3763
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2015, 10:14:00 PM »
I'm a Schoeps-NBox guy after fooling with several mike and preamp combos. 

You'll need to mount them in a hat--they are too big for glasses. 

The NBox can go in an inside pocket or fanny back.

Personally, I think it is the best microphone-preamp combination.

Although Neuman KM140s are excellent mikes, just a tad bigger than the Schoeps caps. 

PM me for details if you'd like.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2015, 02:20:06 AM by Scooter123 »
Regards,
Scooter123

mk41 > N Box  > Sony M-10
mk4 > N Box > Sony M-10

adrianf74

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2015, 09:07:16 AM »
Hey Evan,

Where to start with this one?

I've run the 853's (and am soon to be returning to them due to a multitude of reasons).  I've also run the Naiant AKG Actives > Tinybox and the Schoeps Nbob Actives > Tinybox.  All of this comes down to what you want to spend.

I'm sure I'm not the only person here who will say that "full capsuled omnis" won't be a huge improvement over other omni options.  I've run CA-14 and AT853 omnis against AKG 482's in the past and there hasn't been a HUGE improvement.   If you're an omni-only guy, you might want to look at the DPA 4060's as they're available, are small, and are pretty decent sounding (although they have the "DPA bump" which some people dislike).

IMHO, unless you were looking to run cards or hypers/supers, I don't see the logic in moving to capsules/actives.  They're larger, must be hat mounted, and aren't as comfortable to wear (for longer periods of time) compared to smaller mics.  The million dollar question is "how much do you want to spend" and _IF_ you can find an active TinyBox in the Yard.

Now that Jon's stopped production of his preamps, you've got limited choices: either find your flavoured TinyBox in the Yard or buy an Nbox (platinum) new or used when one shows up.   Schoeps caps will set you back around $1250 used vs. AKG caps which will set you back around $550 (new) and used becomes harder with active options.

I'll shoot you a PM with some other numbers.

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2015, 09:34:31 AM »
All things equal, people with a limited budget tend to degrade their opinion Schoeps based solely on sound comparisons and because of their initial expense.  Over time, those of us that commit to the product find that they pay off for two differentiating factors...the company services what they sell for decades and the product line is so diverse.  The diversity of the product line is important because, as your recording needs change, the range of products available doesn't force major changes in the foundation of the gear in your bag.  At the opposite end is MBHO, who offers a great product, but no diversity and poor support to the point where, even if you want new capsules they're hard to locate and buy...I'm not sure if they've changed but several years ago they never even bothered to update their website!

Offline (Evan)

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 231
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2015, 02:20:11 PM »

I'm sure I'm not the only person here who will say that "full capsuled omnis" won't be a huge improvement over other omni options.  I've run CA-14 and AT853 omnis against AKG 482's in the past and there hasn't been a HUGE improvement.

Does anyone else have anything to add to this? This comes as a huge surprise to me.

adrianf74

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2015, 02:34:43 PM »

I'm sure I'm not the only person here who will say that "full capsuled omnis" won't be a huge improvement over other omni options.  I've run CA-14 and AT853 omnis against AKG 482's in the past and there hasn't been a HUGE improvement.

Does anyone else have anything to add to this? This comes as a huge surprise to me.

I'm not saying they're not better but not exponentially.  There will be some better definition, separation and clarity but the small omni/big omni debate isn't anywhere as drastic as say, hypers or cards. 

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2015, 04:51:10 PM »
Evan, when it comes to gear upgrades, the best thing you can do is listen to the archive and trust your own ears.  Theory is great for the sake of discussion, but it never helped my ears decide what sounded better to me.  If you don't hear a fairly reasonable sound improvement with a good recording made with a pair of AKG-482 or Schoeps MK2's over a good recording with a pair of AT853 omnis, I'll be very surprised, though I agree with Adrian that the improvement is not a linear relationship with the amount of money you spend.  The only sound improvement you hear when changing between hypers and cards is the amount of off-axis rejection...such as rejection of room reverb.  Otherwise two capsules from the same model/line should sound nearly identical.

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (40)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4095
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2015, 09:11:21 PM »
At the opposite end is MBHO, who offers a great product, but no diversity and poor support to the point where, even if you want new capsules they're hard to locate and buy...I'm not sure if they've changed but several years ago they never even bothered to update their website!

NoHypeAudio in Belgium has a good MBHO selection including the modular caps, and their customer service is outstanding.  I bought my Line Audio mics there and highly recommend them.
http://www.nohypeaudio.com/mbhoproducts.htm
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.
- Gustav Mahler

Acoustic Recording Techniques
Team Classical
Team Line Audio
Team DPA

Offline F.O.Bean

  • Team Schoeps Tapir that
  • Trade Count: (126)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 40690
  • Gender: Male
  • Taperus Maximus
    • MediaFire Recordings
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2015, 03:24:39 AM »
I agree with what Adrian and Tonedeaf said! First, you must figure out a budget, and secondly, like Tonedeaf said, listen, listen, listen on www.archive.org and bt.etree.org mainly! Archive.org is nice because you can easily DL/Stream the recordings without fully committing to the whole DL like you would on etree.org, since that's a bit torrent site! Noone can decide which mics you prefer BUT you ;) And there are a lot of different samples of Schoeps/AKG omnis on archive.org! It might take a few weeks to really check most of them out, but I would rather spend a few weeks listening on there than just buying something really fast and then end up not liking it as much as you thought you would!

And another thing, like Adrian said, Its damn near impossible to find a used Littlebox/Tinybox with a Schoeps KCY or AKG Actives input in the yard sale! It was hard enough to find one when Jon WAS still making them. Now that they've been discontinued, well, it would be a matter of luck IMO ;) So your Schoeps options would be Schoeps capsules>Schoeps KCY/NBob KCY(I've heard the NBob Actives are easier to steal*h with since they don't have the Schoeps KCY Junction Box, and the cable is thinner and easier to manage)>Naiant PFA>+48v preamp/all-in-one recorder, which is going to be bulky IMO! Not much better with the AKG actives. Without finding a used Littlebox/Tinybox, its going to be a lot of cables and stuff to deal with IMO!

If omnis are what you're after, I would probably go with the DPA 4060/4061 omnis. They're tiny as shit, and can fit on glasses, versus mounting the bigger Schoeps/AKGs + Active cables inside of a hat! Not to mention there are TONS of samples of the DPA 406x on archive.org! And I'm sure that you can get the DPA 406x cables cut down to whatever length that you want to make steal%hing them a little easier ;) Hell, I like the Church Audio CA14/CA11 omnis just as much as the DPA 406x series, but that's just my opinion ;) And the CA14/CA11 are only $100/pair ;)
Schoeps MK 4V & MK 41V ->
Schoeps 250|0 KCY's (x2) ->
Naiant +60v|Low Noise PFA's (x2) ->
DarkTrain Right Angle Stubby XLR's (x3) ->
Sound Devices MixPre-6 & MixPre-3

http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/diskobean
http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/Bean420
http://bt.etree.org/mytorrents.php
http://www.mediafire.com/folder/j9eu80jpuaubz/Recordings

Offline yates7592

  • Trade Count: (12)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 694
  • Gender: Male
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2015, 04:09:54 AM »

I'm sure I'm not the only person here who will say that "full capsuled omnis" won't be a huge improvement over other omni options.  I've run CA-14 and AT853 omnis against AKG 482's in the past and there hasn't been a HUGE improvement.

Does anyone else have anything to add to this? This comes as a huge surprise to me.

There isn't a linear pro-rata correlation between cost and sound quality improvement moving from miniature to full sized omni's (or any other type of mic for that matter), but IMO there is a VERY noticeable improvement. My experience is going from DPA 4061 to 4006, something like a 3-4 fold cost hike, with easily (at least) 2x improvement IMO, really it's that obvious! Lower self-noise of course, but many other aspects including ruler flat on-axis response (no 10K 'bump'), off-axis directional response at high frequencies (adaptable with APE attachments), sublime mids and highs, MUCH better bass (bass to die for - less bloat/boom, more body and control, very very deep). I would imagine there is a similar level of improvement going to something like Schoeps MK2 but I've never tried them (in different ways maybe, without getting into the DPA vs. Schoeps debate).   
« Last Edit: February 09, 2015, 08:34:20 AM by yates7592 »

Offline Ultfris101

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 764
  • Gender: Male
  • Spoon!!!
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2015, 09:38:14 AM »
I would really suggest DPA 4060s if what you record is not rock music, and 4061's if it is. Very small and you get great performance. Great detail and range. I like the CA mics I have as well. The DPAs are smaller and have worked well.

You don't say what preamp/battery box you're using now but it's quite possible you can keep the rest of your gear chain the same at least for a first move and be able to compare how your rig sounds with a single change.

I think DPA 406x > CA Ugly Battery Box > Sony D-50 or D-100 would probably be a great performing rig. Save a few bucks and get a Sony M10 and in my opinion you're in the sweet spot as far as  >:D rigs go weighing price, size, quality.

I've never tried to  >:D with the larger mics tho I use them when I tape open which is most of the time. I feel they are the worth the money I invested for the recording I do.

I don't have interest in trying to  >:D with the bigger mics. For one I don't have any hair to hide cables up to a hat (but i am growing a beard so that might change :)  ! ) I usually put the mics in my shirt collar and it just doesn't work for me with the bigger capsules.

Mics: Schoeps MK5,MK41 CMC6,KCY,KC5 | AKG ck63,ck1 C460B,C480B | DPA 4061 | Naiant X-R card,hyper | CA-14o,c
Pres: Sound Devices USBPre2 | Naiant Tinybox | Church Audio 9200, UBB
Recs: Zoom F8 | Edirol R-44 | Sony PCM-M10 | Tascam DR-2d
Video: Sony CX550(2), CX580, HX9

LMA: http://archive.org/bookmarks/ultfris101

Offline (Evan)

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 231
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2015, 10:58:29 AM »
The problem with listening to recordings on the LMA to make a decision is that there aren't really any recordings made in the style that I will be using. That is, binaural recordings of musical theatre in venues designed for that type of music. To be honest, most of the recordings on the LMA, even with expensive microphones, don't sound very good compared to my own recordings. I believe this is due to the different types of mixing and amplification that are used at concerts vs live theatre. So I have no real reference of what type of sound upgrade I could possibly get in that environment.

Offline Ultfris101

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 764
  • Gender: Male
  • Spoon!!!
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2015, 01:53:27 PM »
Yes, basing anything on LMA recordings is a bit dodgy. There's all kinds of different factors and processing. And if you're recording in a quiet theater it's very different than a noisy rock venue.

Any chance you could borrow some mics from somebody?
Mics: Schoeps MK5,MK41 CMC6,KCY,KC5 | AKG ck63,ck1 C460B,C480B | DPA 4061 | Naiant X-R card,hyper | CA-14o,c
Pres: Sound Devices USBPre2 | Naiant Tinybox | Church Audio 9200, UBB
Recs: Zoom F8 | Edirol R-44 | Sony PCM-M10 | Tascam DR-2d
Video: Sony CX550(2), CX580, HX9

LMA: http://archive.org/bookmarks/ultfris101

Offline acidjack

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (37)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 5845
  • Gender: Male
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2015, 01:55:44 PM »
So after using AT853's with various capsules for many years, I think it's time to upgrade.

I'm mainly a stealth musical theatre taper, and I almost always making binaural recordings with omnis secured near my ears. Crowd noise is never an issue in musical theatre, so omni caps have served me very well.

I'm interested in moving to either AKG or Schoeps caps with active cables and an Nbox/Tinybox/whatever into my PCM-D50.

For my purposes, can you guys point me in the best direction for what I want to do?

Especially since the tinybox is not made anymore, I think Schoeps>NBox is the best-sounding combination. Obviously the AKG combo is less expensive and still quite good.

I don't think fullsize omnis are really the way to go. Yes, the larger diaphragm Schoeps MK2 is quite good, but the DPA 4061 is a lot closer in quality to the Schoeps MK2 than, say, AT 853 cards are to Schoeps MK4V

Oh, I personally recommend the V caps, especially for stealth.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2015, 01:57:49 PM by acidjack »
Mics: Schoeps MK4V, MK41V, MK5, MK22> CMC6, KCY 250/5, KC5, NBob; MBHO MBP603/KA200N, AT 3031, DPA 4061 w/ d:vice, Naiant X-X, AT 853c, shotgun, Nak300
Pres/Power: Aerco MP2, tinybox v2  [KCY], CA-UBB
Decks: Sound Devices MixPre 6, Zoom F8, M10, D50

My recordings on nyctaper.com: http://www.nyctaper.com/?tag=acidjack | LMA: http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/acidjack | twitter: http://www.twitter.com/acidjacknyc | Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/acidjacknyc

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2015, 02:22:07 PM »
Splitting hairs about definitions, but I assume that 'full-sized' in the context people are using the term in this thread, means bigger than miniature mics, right?  I know there are many people on ts.com that stealth with Schoeps even though they're being referred to here as 'full size'.  I mean, the Schoeps collette series is, by definition, a small diaphragm microphone as opposed to say a Neumann large diaphragm TL series mic.  I think the point being made is that, due to their size, Schoeps aren't as conveniently stealthable as the miniature DPA-40xx microphones, but they're most certainly stealthable.  So, I'm not really sure what 'full sized' means, although I guess if Schoeps are full-size then LD mics would be 'much bigger than full-sized?'   
« Last Edit: February 09, 2015, 02:29:16 PM by tonedeaf »

adrianf74

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2015, 02:39:04 PM »
I'll add that there has been an increase in the quality of the recordings with the larger capsule mics (I've run both AKG and Schoeps Actives) compared to the 406x and 853 (and have run pretty much every "mini mic" under the sun), however, for omnis, I'll say it again: I don't think the extra outlay is that huge of an improvement.  Yates says that the outlay was about 4x the cost for 2x the improvement.  That sounds about right but there is no specfic ratio as tonedeaf has mentioned. 

The last thing I want to see you do is spent a crapload of money to find out that, for the omnis at least, that it was "hardly" worth it.  As mentioned previously, you'd notice more of a difference with the cards and hypers than the omnis, however, the 853's can sound good if you're in a sweet spot.   I run MK22 and MK41's right now and love both caps but, due to everything that's happened this past year plus my future plans, I've made the decision to go back to the 853's with ALL of the caps.  Many of the rooms I record in are muddy and no mic truly shines making the extra money I spent hardly worth it.

That said, there's no problem with spending the extra cash on the larger capsules but I think it's closer to a lateral move than a move up.

Offline acidjack

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (37)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 5845
  • Gender: Male
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2015, 03:27:32 PM »
Splitting hairs about definitions, but I assume that 'full-sized' in the context people are using the term in this thread, means bigger than miniature mics, right?  I know there are many people on ts.com that stealth with Schoeps even though they're being referred to here as 'full size'.  I mean, the Schoeps collette series is, by definition, a small diaphragm microphone as opposed to say a Neumann large diaphragm TL series mic.  I think the point being made is that, due to their size, Schoeps aren't as conveniently stealthable as the miniature DPA-40xx microphones, but they're most certainly stealthable.  So, I'm not really sure what 'full sized' means, although I guess if Schoeps are full-size then LD mics would be 'much bigger than full-sized?'   
Yes, I was referring to Schoeps caps in a hat as "full size" versus "miniature" mics such as 406x, AT 853, etc. People more knowledgeable than me have pointed out before that it's much easier to make a mini/micro omni mic than a directional one for engineering reasons; thus a Schoeps-size cardiod or the MK41 is more of a quantum leap from AT853, whereas MK2s are not quite so giant of a leap from DPA 406x or other small omnis, indeed even much cheaper ones.
Mics: Schoeps MK4V, MK41V, MK5, MK22> CMC6, KCY 250/5, KC5, NBob; MBHO MBP603/KA200N, AT 3031, DPA 4061 w/ d:vice, Naiant X-X, AT 853c, shotgun, Nak300
Pres/Power: Aerco MP2, tinybox v2  [KCY], CA-UBB
Decks: Sound Devices MixPre 6, Zoom F8, M10, D50

My recordings on nyctaper.com: http://www.nyctaper.com/?tag=acidjack | LMA: http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/acidjack | twitter: http://www.twitter.com/acidjacknyc | Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/acidjacknyc

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2015, 04:06:43 PM »
Splitting hairs about definitions, but I assume that 'full-sized' in the context people are using the term in this thread, means bigger than miniature mics, right?  I know there are many people on ts.com that stealth with Schoeps even though they're being referred to here as 'full size'.  I mean, the Schoeps collette series is, by definition, a small diaphragm microphone as opposed to say a Neumann large diaphragm TL series mic.  I think the point being made is that, due to their size, Schoeps aren't as conveniently stealthable as the miniature DPA-40xx microphones, but they're most certainly stealthable.  So, I'm not really sure what 'full sized' means, although I guess if Schoeps are full-size then LD mics would be 'much bigger than full-sized?'   
Yes, I was referring to Schoeps caps in a hat as "full size" versus "miniature" mics such as 406x, AT 853, etc. People more knowledgeable than me have pointed out before that it's much easier to make a mini/micro omni mic than a directional one for engineering reasons; thus a Schoeps-size cardiod or the MK41 is more of a quantum leap from AT853, whereas MK2s are not quite so giant of a leap from DPA 406x or other small omnis, indeed even much cheaper ones.

OK, thanks for the explanation.  I never realized the technical challenges you point out, so putting the discussion into that context makes a lot more sense to me now.  It also might explain the reason why I felt that, when I had both card and Omni versions of CA-14, that I thought the Omni's sounded better than the cards.  I always thought it was just me but maybe not.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2015, 04:10:18 PM by tonedeaf »

Offline daspyknows

  • Complaint Dept.
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 9617
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't ask, don't tell, don't get get caught
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2015, 07:50:46 PM »
I invested in the development of the Schoeps/Actives over 20 years ago.  Bill designed the box aka RBox.  That was the design that morphed into the NBox.  I purchased an NBox from Nick because my RBox (serial number 002) looked too much like a bomb and after 9/11 it was a pain to travel with.  After 20 years and hundreds of shows I think on a per show basis it has been fully amortized.  I have not had any desire for something better although I do want a pair of MK41s to go with my MK4s.  I only record  >:D and personally feel the cost justifies the value.  Many many examples of my work is on Planet Rock and Dime.   

Offline blg

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
  • Gender: Male
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2015, 08:09:12 PM »
I invested in the development of the Schoeps/Actives over 20 years ago.  Bill designed the box aka RBox.  That was the design that morphed into the NBox.  I purchased an NBox from Nick because my RBox (serial number 002) looked too much like a bomb and after 9/11 it was a pain to travel with.  After 20 years and hundreds of shows I think on a per show basis it has been fully amortized.  I have not had any desire for something better although I do want a pair of MK41s to go with my MK4s.  I only record  >:D and personally feel the cost justifies the value.  Many many examples of my work is on Planet Rock and Dime.

As far as i'm concerned, there is no better stealth mic than the MK41. I feel like i've more than justified the price with the many shows i've taped over the past 2 years with them.  I would never go back to stealthing with omnis.
Schoeps MK41 |
Naiant Tinybox v2.5 w/OT
NBob Actives v2
Sony PCM-M10 x2
dime LMA

Offline bombdiggity

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2015, 06:15:09 PM »
stealthing with omnis.
especially with the behavior of most audiences and the sound of many rooms seems like an exercise in :  :banging head:
and usually sounds like it. 

OTOH for musical theater as OP intends it might work if the rooms and mic placements are good... 
Gear:
Audio:
Schoeps MK4V
Nak CM-100/CM-300 w/ CP-1's or CP-4's
SP-CMC-25
>
Oade C mod R-44  OR
Tinybox > Sony PCM-M10 (formerly Roland R-05) 
Video: Varied, with various outboard mics depending on the situation

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #21 on: February 11, 2015, 08:32:34 AM »
I don't think I've ever read a thread in ts.com that, after only two pages, has a wider range of opinions as this one.   ;D

Offline chk

  • Trade Count: (7)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 261
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2015, 10:33:40 AM »
for classical music in a theatre and a quiet audience, as the OP mentioned, he wants to go with omni's and to me that makes a lot of sense.  not telling you all anything you don't know already, but omni's provide a far flatter response and are going to capture the dynamics, the bass much better than anything directional, and for classical music this is important.  plus the openness and "space" you get from a stereo omni recording sounds fundamentally different than directional mics.  again this i think is meaningful and important for the type of recordings the OP plans to do. 

In terms of my experience having run a variety of omni caps over the years, including Naks (CP3), the Church mics (CA11 mkII) and the Schoeps MK2S, I think there is a meaningful improvement using the Schoeps capsules.  Whether it's worth spending a great deal of extra coin on is an entirely different discussion. 

The Church CA11mkIIs do have a "bump" in the high frequencies as the Schoeps MK2S does (it's different, though, feel like it perhaps kicks in at a lower frequency on the CA mics, while the MK2S just adds a bit of sweetness at the highest frequencies, you can see the diagram on schoeps website).  Either one will help bring a bit of extra clarity to the recording, which appeals to me.  I have found the bigger difference between the Naks and the Church mics to be in the lower bass frequencies, where the Schoeps are just plain flatter and cleaner on a relative basis.  I have not done meaningful comparisons between the Schoeps Omni's and the DPAs, but from what I have heard from listening to a good deal of DPA Omni recordings, they are very similar.

I am running CA11mkIIs > Tinybox and Schoeps caps > Nbob active cables > Tinybox >M10.  Either is great in terms of being very low profile.  Hope this helps and good luck...

Offline (Evan)

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 231
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #23 on: February 13, 2015, 03:38:55 PM »
Lots of info to take in here. Thanks guys.

Question: Is it possible to run Schoeps CMR's on 12v of phantom power, or is that too much? Lets say I got a pair terminated into a 5-pin mini-xlr....could I split that into two fullsize XLRs with 12v powering each?

If not, who currently makes a battery box or preamp that can provide sufficient power in the smallest form factor?

Thanks
« Last Edit: February 13, 2015, 05:01:42 PM by (Evan) »

Offline Scooter123

  • "I am not an alcoholic. I am a drunk. Drunks don't go to meetings."
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3763
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #24 on: February 14, 2015, 12:28:04 AM »
Here is what I did a decade ago....

I downloaded 100 of my favorite sounding shows on The Dime.  I then listened to each one and made a spread sheet of the mike and preamp.  I then ranked the various shows.

What I came up with was this.  About 40% of my favorite shows were MK4 > NBox.  Another 40% were Neuman KM140s > Anything.  The rest were a smattering of AKG and even some really cheap ass mikes that somehow sounded great.  Once I looked at size, the MK4 > NBox made more sense inside a hat.  I later added MK41s to the mix, but honestly, I can't tell the difference between the two.  Maybe someone else can, but I cannot. 

I did not know that the Tinybox is no longer being made.  That's sad--it was a great preamp for the price and size. 

That's how I ended up with Schoeps and the NBox--and never looked back. 

Listen and draw your own conclusions.  I'm not trying to sell you on a particular rig. 

Regards,
Scooter123

mk41 > N Box  > Sony M-10
mk4 > N Box > Sony M-10

Offline (Evan)

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 231
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #25 on: February 14, 2015, 05:55:04 PM »
So I'm actually going in a little bit of a different direction now.

I'm considering purchasing a used set of CMRs with the MK21 capsules and the Niant PFA. I've stealthed with my AT853 sub-cardioid caps mounted on my ears and have gotten wonderful recordings from them. Even though this technique is meant to be used with omni's, it has worked very well for me with the sub-cards as well.

If I were to go with MK21s, should I expect this to work just as well/better? A hat is absolutely out of the question as these are dressy events. I know someone said that these would be too big for glasses, but I've mounted larger microphones to my glasses in the past just fine. I don't put them on until the theatre goes dark, and audiences really don't care if they notice either way.

Does this seem like a good idea?

Offline Scooter123

  • "I am not an alcoholic. I am a drunk. Drunks don't go to meetings."
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3763
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #26 on: February 14, 2015, 09:43:36 PM »
I've never been to an event which so dressy that a hat is frowned upon.  If anything, it would depend on the hat.

There are trucker's hats, player hats, and kangol hats.  I'm sure there is a hat for any event.  I happen to own several.
Regards,
Scooter123

mk41 > N Box  > Sony M-10
mk4 > N Box > Sony M-10

Offline (Evan)

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 231
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #27 on: February 14, 2015, 09:44:26 PM »
I've never been to an event which so dressy that a hat is frowned upon.  If anything, it would depend on the hat.

There are trucker's hats, player hats, and kangol hats.  I'm sure there is a hat for any event.  I happen to own several.

It's just not for me.

Offline F.O.Bean

  • Team Schoeps Tapir that
  • Trade Count: (126)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 40690
  • Gender: Male
  • Taperus Maximus
    • MediaFire Recordings
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #28 on: February 15, 2015, 01:20:43 AM »
I have owned mk21s in the past, and I think that they would be perfect for what you want to do IMO! But with regards to the CMRs, you're very limited with what preamp/power supply you can use with them, and with the Tinybox being discontinued, the options are even more limited! I know a good deal about Schoeps, but I honestly don't know much about the CMRs since they're not widely used among us tapers. I honestly don't know what preamp/powering supply you would even use with the Tinybox not being an option anymore ???

But I do think that the mk21s would be fantastic for your uses ;) So Id go for those if I were you! I only used them onstage/stage lip and FOB at jamband shows, so I have no experience with them in your situation! But IMO, they would be an ideal capsule for what you plan on doing with them! They're nice and warm and rounded and would help cut out the ambient noise behind you (If any), while still having that full, warm omni sound! I wish I had more uses for subcards, because if I did, I'd own another pair of mk21s in a heartbeat ;) 8)
Schoeps MK 4V & MK 41V ->
Schoeps 250|0 KCY's (x2) ->
Naiant +60v|Low Noise PFA's (x2) ->
DarkTrain Right Angle Stubby XLR's (x3) ->
Sound Devices MixPre-6 & MixPre-3

http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/diskobean
http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/Bean420
http://bt.etree.org/mytorrents.php
http://www.mediafire.com/folder/j9eu80jpuaubz/Recordings

Offline (Evan)

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 231
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #29 on: February 15, 2015, 05:55:41 PM »
Right, pretty simple. So now my biggest concern is that the MK21s provide good results when using with a [head] baffle. Anyone have opinions on this?

I also feel like going with the MK21s over omnis will give me more flexibility for use in non-stealthing situations.

Offline Scooter123

  • "I am not an alcoholic. I am a drunk. Drunks don't go to meetings."
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3763
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #30 on: February 15, 2015, 08:26:14 PM »
Not having the mikes in a hat will limit the situations you'll be able to stealth in.  Van Morrison, The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac and other bands have roving security folks looking for tapers and will gleefully toss you out.  I would not be able to wear mk21s on my glasses or clipped to a collar.  They are just too big. 

If you are looking for glasses and collar type mounting mikes, one of the first mikes I would look at would be DPA Omnis.  They are super tiny and clip right to your (button down) collar, are very inconspicuous, and only require a few volts to power them.  These mikes shine in close in stack taping. 

I've owned a pair and loved them, although the Schoeps smoked them in most locations. 
Regards,
Scooter123

mk41 > N Box  > Sony M-10
mk4 > N Box > Sony M-10

Offline (Evan)

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 231
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #31 on: February 15, 2015, 08:29:21 PM »
Not having the mikes in a hat will limit the situations you'll be able to stealth in.  Van Morrison, The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac and other bands have roving security folks looking for tapers and will gleefully toss you out.  I would not be able to wear mk21s on my glasses or clipped to a collar.  They are just too big. 

If you are looking for glasses and collar type mounting mikes, one of the first mikes I would look at would be DPA Omnis.  They are super tiny and clip right to your (button down) collar, are very inconspicuous, and only require a few volts to power them.  These mikes shine in close in stack taping. 

I've owned a pair and loved them, although the Schoeps smoked them in most locations.


As I keep saying, I am ONLY stealthing with these in completely dark theaters during musical theatre performances. That's all I'm interested in. I don't tape concerts. Ushers at musical theatre events don't look for tapers.


Offline acidjack

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (37)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 5845
  • Gender: Male
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #32 on: February 16, 2015, 01:51:25 AM »
Not having the mikes in a hat will limit the situations you'll be able to stealth in.  Van Morrison, The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac and other bands have roving security folks looking for tapers and will gleefully toss you out.  I would not be able to wear mk21s on my glasses or clipped to a collar.  They are just too big. 

If you are looking for glasses and collar type mounting mikes, one of the first mikes I would look at would be DPA Omnis.  They are super tiny and clip right to your (button down) collar, are very inconspicuous, and only require a few volts to power them.  These mikes shine in close in stack taping. 

I've owned a pair and loved them, although the Schoeps smoked them in most locations.


As I keep saying, I am ONLY stealthing with these in completely dark theaters during musical theatre performances. That's all I'm interested in. I don't tape concerts. Ushers at musical theatre events don't look for tapers.

Evan, for reasons already stated, I don't think your proposed approach makes any sense. But do what you think is best for you. You've heard a lot of reasons why what you want to do absolutely will not work. I would listen to them.
Mics: Schoeps MK4V, MK41V, MK5, MK22> CMC6, KCY 250/5, KC5, NBob; MBHO MBP603/KA200N, AT 3031, DPA 4061 w/ d:vice, Naiant X-X, AT 853c, shotgun, Nak300
Pres/Power: Aerco MP2, tinybox v2  [KCY], CA-UBB
Decks: Sound Devices MixPre 6, Zoom F8, M10, D50

My recordings on nyctaper.com: http://www.nyctaper.com/?tag=acidjack | LMA: http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/acidjack | twitter: http://www.twitter.com/acidjacknyc | Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/acidjacknyc

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #33 on: February 16, 2015, 07:56:51 AM »
FWIW, I didn't have any luck running 21s away from the stage lip.  The sound got blurred and overall just wasn't up to the sound quality standards I was used to with MK4 's.  I'm not sure I made notes in my recordings, but I used approximately NOS spacing and was PAS.  Since I don't do stage lip recording anymore, I had no further use for MK21s so I sold them after this experience.  To listen to some results for yourself, search live music archive...summer camp + tonedeaf + mk21.  Perhaps a head baffle would make a difference in stealth mode...not sure since I haven't tried.

Just offering that up as my experience, though for full disclosure I didn't try more than about ten times taping away from the stage with 21s before giving up on them for that recording scenario.

Offline (Evan)

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 231
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #34 on: February 16, 2015, 10:30:29 AM »
Evan, for reasons already stated, I don't think your proposed approach makes any sense. But do what you think is best for you. You've heard a lot of reasons why what you want to do absolutely will not work. I would listen to them.

Such as? I haven't seen a single post saying that my approach doesn't make any sense until yours. Only that the results from moving to larger mics would be negligible.

What I have seen is several posts saying that the mics are too big to stealth with without a hat, which is not a question I have ever asked. I have been stealthing for 14 years, and I have stealthed with larger mics than these. It's not an issue for what I do. I'm a little confused as to why people are trying to help me solve a problem that I do not have.

What I am trying to find is the best possible microphone set, that can be used with the method that has worked extremely well for me over the past 14 years. I'm simply curious as to whether or not there is a way to improve these already great results.

FWIW, I didn't have any luck running 21s away from the stage lip.  The sound got blurred and overall just wasn't up to the sound quality standards I was used to with MK4 's.  I'm not sure I made notes in my recordings, but I used approximately NOS spacing and was PAS.  Since I don't do stage lip recording anymore, I had no further use for MK21s so I sold them after this experience.  To listen to some results for yourself, search live music archive...summer camp + tonedeaf + mk21.  Perhaps a head baffle would make a difference in stealth mode...not sure since I haven't tried.

Just offering that up as my experience, though for full disclosure I didn't try more than about ten times taping away from the stage with 21s before giving up on them for that recording scenario.

Interesting, thanks. Unfortunately the CMRs and MK21's would be a little pricey to purchase without knowing beforehand whether they provide good results with a head baffle or not. Would it be silly to assume that since the AT853 sub-cards work well this way, the MK21s should as well? They are both sub-cards after all. If only I could locate a loaner set to try this out...

I'm definitely considering the DPA 4060's as well. My only reason for asking about the MK21's is that if they WOULD work in my situation, then I would also be less limited in using them in other non-stealthing situations. I don't see myself having any other use for the DPA's aside from stealthing. So the MK21 would be more versatile for me. But if they won't work with a head baffle, then they aren't worth it.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 11:06:31 AM by (Evan) »

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #35 on: February 16, 2015, 11:04:21 AM »
So the MK21 would be more versatile for me. But if they won't work with a head baffle, then they aren't worth it.

Sorry.  I didn't really want to throw any more uncertainty into your decision, but then I did want to share my experience.  I know it's not an easy decision to make.  I'm not trying to offer difference of opinion just to be different, although I have at times been one to see things differently than a lot of people (I prefer to think of myself as a critical thinker ;)).  It's just that I really didn't have much luck with my mk21 experience when I backed away from the stage.

I can't comment on whether there's an analogy with at853 subcards. 

Offline F.O.Bean

  • Team Schoeps Tapir that
  • Trade Count: (126)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 40690
  • Gender: Male
  • Taperus Maximus
    • MediaFire Recordings
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #36 on: February 16, 2015, 11:07:52 AM »
I think you could find a used pair of mk21s relatively easy, so if you bought them and didn't like the results you got, you could easily resell them without losing a dime ;) Same goes for used CMRs! I personally, think that the mk21s would work great for what you do, as long as you aren't VERY far from the sound source. BTW, how far from the sound source do you usually record from? If its more than maybe like 75'-100', then Id probably stay away from the mk21s, as they really do shine pretty close to the source ;)

Here's what the mk21s sound like DFC/FOB, about 40'-50' away from the stage! Granted I know its not the musical style you record, but its just to give you an idea what they sound like!

https://archive.org/details/moe2013-05-24.mk21.lb.m10.flac16
Schoeps MK 4V & MK 41V ->
Schoeps 250|0 KCY's (x2) ->
Naiant +60v|Low Noise PFA's (x2) ->
DarkTrain Right Angle Stubby XLR's (x3) ->
Sound Devices MixPre-6 & MixPre-3

http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/diskobean
http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/Bean420
http://bt.etree.org/mytorrents.php
http://www.mediafire.com/folder/j9eu80jpuaubz/Recordings

Offline (Evan)

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 231
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #37 on: February 16, 2015, 11:13:29 AM »
I think you could find a used pair of mk21s relatively easy, so if you bought them and didn't like the results you got, you could easily resell them without losing a dime ;) Same goes for used CMRs! I personally, think that the mk21s would work great for what you do, as long as you aren't VERY far from the sound source. BTW, how far from the sound source do you usually record from? If its more than maybe like 75'-100', then Id probably stay away from the mk21s, as they really do shine pretty close to the source ;)

Here's what the mk21s sound like DFC/FOB, about 40'-50' away from the stage! Granted I know its not the musical style you record, but its just to give you an idea what they sound like!

https://archive.org/details/moe2013-05-24.mk21.lb.m10.flac16

Where I sit really varies from show to show...though I usually am pretty successful in securing seats close to the stage.

The MK21s do sound great. I've listened to a lot of recordings made with them, but none with a baffle of any type  :-\

Offline F.O.Bean

  • Team Schoeps Tapir that
  • Trade Count: (126)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 40690
  • Gender: Male
  • Taperus Maximus
    • MediaFire Recordings
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #38 on: February 16, 2015, 12:07:58 PM »
I think you could find a used pair of mk21s relatively easy, so if you bought them and didn't like the results you got, you could easily resell them without losing a dime ;) Same goes for used CMRs! I personally, think that the mk21s would work great for what you do, as long as you aren't VERY far from the sound source. BTW, how far from the sound source do you usually record from? If its more than maybe like 75'-100', then Id probably stay away from the mk21s, as they really do shine pretty close to the source ;)

Here's what the mk21s sound like DFC/FOB, about 40'-50' away from the stage! Granted I know its not the musical style you record, but its just to give you an idea what they sound like!

https://archive.org/details/moe2013-05-24.mk21.lb.m10.flac16

Where I sit really varies from show to show...though I usually am pretty successful in securing seats close to the stage.

The MK21s do sound great. I've listened to a lot of recordings made with them, but none with a baffle of any type  :-\

I highly doubt there are ANY tapes with the mk21s being baffled, so you'd probably have to be the guinea pig in that regard ;)
Schoeps MK 4V & MK 41V ->
Schoeps 250|0 KCY's (x2) ->
Naiant +60v|Low Noise PFA's (x2) ->
DarkTrain Right Angle Stubby XLR's (x3) ->
Sound Devices MixPre-6 & MixPre-3

http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/diskobean
http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/Bean420
http://bt.etree.org/mytorrents.php
http://www.mediafire.com/folder/j9eu80jpuaubz/Recordings

Offline acidjack

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (37)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 5845
  • Gender: Male
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #39 on: February 16, 2015, 06:46:47 PM »
What I have seen is several posts saying that the mics are too big to stealth with without a hat, which is not a question I have ever asked. I have been stealthing for 14 years, and I have stealthed with larger mics than these. It's not an issue for what I do. I'm a little confused as to why people are trying to help me solve a problem that I do not have.

You said you wanted to buy Schoeps or AKG actives so you can tape musical theater concerts (for which the sound emanates almost entirely from an orchestra pit and/or PA system). You said you don't want to use a hat, and you can stealth with any size mics. That you record musical theater is mostly irrelevant except that (a) there is no value to "onstage" recording like there might be with something like, say, jazz and (b) presumably your seats are always assigned, and probably not always terribly close.

If you don't record onstage, the MK21 is a fool's errand, or at least, certainly not optimal in most situations. That's also my opinion of an omnidirectional mic, unless your theaters you record in are all acoustically perfect.

I guess when I think of musical theater I think of New York, and I am pretty damn sure if I went into a venue in NYC with Schoeps taped to my glasses I would get caught. If you're putting the mics under your shirt or in a pocket or something, then there's really no point having a further discussion, as that's not a valid way to use a high-end microphone to do anything. I disagree that ushers in NYC venues won't notice somebody with microphones on their head (or a video camera, since that's the most common problem they have), but perhaps it is different where you live.

If in fact you can magically stealth with anything of any size, then you may as well buy AKG 414s or better yet, Neumann U89s. They have outstanding sonic characteristics and of course can be switched to whatever pattern you want. Certainly I've heard of people taping rock concerts stealth with such mics; I wouldn't want to go to that trouble, but if your fourteen years of experience makes you so confident, then by all means, go for it.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 06:55:53 PM by acidjack »
Mics: Schoeps MK4V, MK41V, MK5, MK22> CMC6, KCY 250/5, KC5, NBob; MBHO MBP603/KA200N, AT 3031, DPA 4061 w/ d:vice, Naiant X-X, AT 853c, shotgun, Nak300
Pres/Power: Aerco MP2, tinybox v2  [KCY], CA-UBB
Decks: Sound Devices MixPre 6, Zoom F8, M10, D50

My recordings on nyctaper.com: http://www.nyctaper.com/?tag=acidjack | LMA: http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/acidjack | twitter: http://www.twitter.com/acidjacknyc | Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/acidjacknyc

Offline (Evan)

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 231
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #40 on: February 16, 2015, 06:50:08 PM »

OK, then it sounds like you have all the answers then. I'm just not sure what you're asking here. If you can stealth with any size gear, get some Neumann U89s. They have every pattern, and they sound amazing. Good luck. ::shrug::


If I had all the answers, I wouldn't have made a topic here asking questions. You're giving me answers to questions I didn't ask. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. Is there a reading comprehension problem here? It's like telling the doctor you have an earache, and being prescribed Viagra.

And when did I say I could stealth with any size gear? Again...something is not adding up here reading comprehension-wise.

Thanks to the other posters who have been helpful both here and through private messaging.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 07:00:25 PM by (Evan) »

Offline Fried Chicken Boy

  • Trade Count: (8)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3023
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #41 on: February 17, 2015, 12:51:22 PM »
In regards to a few of your queries above, Evan:

When you refer to using your head as a microphone baffle, your head is essentially acting as a Jecklin disk.  That's a proven setup and technique for omni microphones and I don't see why it couldn't be done with sub- and wide-cards.  Most stealth tapers inadvertently do so anyway when they head-mount their mics. 

The DPA 4060s are worth considering but how would you use the MK21s in non-stealthing situations that you wouldn't use the DPAs for?  The 4060s are excellent omni mics that, while tiny, can certainly be used for situations other than stealthing.  They are both great microphones but it's a matter of getting the right tool for the job. 

Offline chk

  • Trade Count: (7)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 261
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #42 on: February 17, 2015, 02:05:49 PM »
if you are in acoustically good to excellent sounding rooms with minimal to no crowd noise, and you are happy with the omni sound you already have....and simply looking to upgrade your gear, i think your best bet is the DPA omnis (great sound, tiny size, easy to power, proven).  however, if you can stomach a larger capsule, you go the active cables> Schoeps MK2S or AKG omni route...both of the latter having the added ability to run the rig with different capsules, with the AKGs being considerably less expensive than the DPA or Schoeps, with a proven sound that you can get a lot of samples to listen to.

the perspective of many of the replies here is louder concert taping with chatty/loud audiences, problems you don't have (if i understand your original post).  given this, i would argue the Schoeps MK21 caps would do fine.  a little more directionality/imaging than the omni sound you already like, but slightly harder to position properly if they are in a hat.  as with anything, there are pros/cons and compromises. 

good luck

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #43 on: February 17, 2015, 03:20:06 PM »
I'm mostly a PAS taper running my mics on a stand, but I've never seen anyone running their directional mics with a baffle on a stand.  Yet lots of people in this thread seem to be OK with it for stealthing.  Weird.

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #44 on: February 17, 2015, 04:12:49 PM »
^ For sure.  The point of my comment wasn't necessarily to say it's 'illegal' to baffle directional mics, but more that tapers are traditionalists about some taping 'standards', such as not using baffles on a stand with directional mics, until the discussion morphs to another situation.  If I was in a taper section and used a baffle between my cardioids, you know that literally everyone would say how strange it is.

Offline (Evan)

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 231
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #45 on: February 18, 2015, 11:10:02 AM »
There is such a wide array of opinions here...definitely makes my decision much more difficult!

I'm leaning more and more towards the DPA 4060/4061's (which one would be best for my situation?), but I want to make sure I completely understand what you guys are saying. Would my results with the DPA's be comparable or better than using larger diaphragm Omni capsules such as Schoeps or AKG? I was unaware of the "smaller is better" rule when it comes to omnis before starting this thread.

Thanks!

Offline yates7592

  • Trade Count: (12)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 694
  • Gender: Male
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #46 on: February 18, 2015, 11:43:34 AM »
DPA 406x are fine mics, I've used them many times with pleasing results. But they are NOT better or even anywhere near the SQ from the large omni capsule from DPA (4006 - see my earlier post), nor would I very much doubt they are better or near Schoeps MK2. I think what others have been saying is that for card/hyper mics the step up in quality from miniature to the full size mic caps is very significant, whereas for omni's it is not quite as large a gap (becasue miniature omni's tend to be better than miniature directional mics). BUT, it is still a large and significant gap IMO because I've run both extensively and know from experience that 4006 smokes 406x. And you can run 4006(C or E) with a head baffle.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2015, 11:45:25 AM by yates7592 »

Offline acidjack

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (37)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 5845
  • Gender: Male
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #47 on: February 18, 2015, 12:11:32 PM »
There is such a wide array of opinions here...definitely makes my decision much more difficult!

I'm leaning more and more towards the DPA 4060/4061's (which one would be best for my situation?), but I want to make sure I completely understand what you guys are saying. Would my results with the DPA's be comparable or better than using larger diaphragm Omni capsules such as Schoeps or AKG? I was unaware of the "smaller is better" rule when it comes to omnis before starting this thread.

Thanks!

Not "smaller is better"; just that in omnis, "smaller is not as bad".  There is no miniature cardiod that will measure up to a Schoeps MK4, AKG ck61, etc. Omnis are easier to manufacture at tiny sizes without compromising sound quality; hence, the DPA 406x are pretty darn close in quality to Schoeps MK2 or DPA 400x (at least, IMHO, for "stealth" recording; agree 100% w/ yates that the larger-diaphragm mics are still better). Are they somewhat less good? Yes, they aren't as good, but the are much simpler to use, much more unobtrusive, and still sound outstanding.  Hollywood film studios put them to plenty of good use.
Mics: Schoeps MK4V, MK41V, MK5, MK22> CMC6, KCY 250/5, KC5, NBob; MBHO MBP603/KA200N, AT 3031, DPA 4061 w/ d:vice, Naiant X-X, AT 853c, shotgun, Nak300
Pres/Power: Aerco MP2, tinybox v2  [KCY], CA-UBB
Decks: Sound Devices MixPre 6, Zoom F8, M10, D50

My recordings on nyctaper.com: http://www.nyctaper.com/?tag=acidjack | LMA: http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/acidjack | twitter: http://www.twitter.com/acidjacknyc | Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/acidjacknyc

Offline 2manyrocks

  • Trade Count: (12)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1664
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #48 on: February 18, 2015, 03:10:44 PM »
I have 4061s and have recorded a musical done in a sanctuary seating about 700 or more.  My recording from the back pew had too many reflections.  Concert recording from the second pew was pretty respectable. Mic placement affects all mics.

Only negative I see is these have tiny cables and can't be expected to be as robust as full size mics.

Offline Ultfris101

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 764
  • Gender: Male
  • Spoon!!!
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #49 on: February 18, 2015, 04:18:42 PM »
Speculation/opinion: I would expect the mk21s to work quite well actually and would be an excellent compromise between omnis and cards especially if you've found subcards worked well in the past. I can't imagine the head baffle would behave much differently than if you were using omnis but maybe somebody can chime in that they do something bad. Given that you probably won't be able to angle them much the baffle will probably work well.

Just opinion, and many here are far more experienced than I am, but I would think the mk21s would be good for you, especially if you are likely to be recording in rooms with decent sound treatment that reduce uglier amounts of reflection.

The detail and broad, flat response you get from any of the Schoeps will be great and if you're recording in a theater with classical music your noise floor will be lower so it's quite possible you'll benefit from the small diaphragm size vs the mini-mic size.
 
I've not looked closely at the CMR cables before but if they can run off a ~9v supply I'm thinking I might need to get a pair myself.
Mics: Schoeps MK5,MK41 CMC6,KCY,KC5 | AKG ck63,ck1 C460B,C480B | DPA 4061 | Naiant X-R card,hyper | CA-14o,c
Pres: Sound Devices USBPre2 | Naiant Tinybox | Church Audio 9200, UBB
Recs: Zoom F8 | Edirol R-44 | Sony PCM-M10 | Tascam DR-2d
Video: Sony CX550(2), CX580, HX9

LMA: http://archive.org/bookmarks/ultfris101

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15683
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #50 on: February 18, 2015, 05:27:26 PM »
DPA 4060.

8 reasons why-

1) It fits with everything you've mentioned about what you record, the way in which you record and your seating location in the venues in which you record.
2) Large improvement over the ATs you are using now, IMO.
3) Has lower self-noise-floor the less sensitive DPA 4061, which may actually be a factor given what you are recording. 
4) Only requires a simple battery-box or low-voltage supply preamp between the microphones and your recorder (which you probably already own).
5) If you decide you want to switch to a more complicated and less compact setup, they are easy to sell here in the yard-sale.
6) Makes outstanding outdoor recordings when sufficiently spaced 3' apart or more.
7) Useful for non-stealth indoor recordings on-stage or at the stage-lip (on stalks or boundary mounted) or from the back of the room boundary mounted on the rear wall (in which case they will outperform most directional microphones used from the same distant location).

If you have not already mastered the skill, learn how to expertly manipulate your recordings with careful application of EQ, which will have a far greater influence on the quality of the resulting recording than switching to a different omni once the microphone you are using is above a certain quality level, especially if the differentiation between the two microphones you are comparing is primarily that of their frequency response curves (and it often is).
8 ) IMO, the DPA406x surpass that threshold.  Less costly small omnis I have used do not.  This places them at a sweet spot in the cost/complexity curve and they remain "plenty good enough" for everything I record, which is similar to what you are recording.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline Scooter123

  • "I am not an alcoholic. I am a drunk. Drunks don't go to meetings."
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3763
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #51 on: February 19, 2015, 12:33:30 AM »
What Mr. Gutbucket said.  I've owned a pair and although I'm a Schoeps guy, there are times I really miss those DPAs   They especially shine in nice theaters in more formal concerts.  Dare I say that in those types of shows, the DPAs beat Schoeps?  I miss mine.  You actually capture the room and ambiance 

Regards,
Scooter123

mk41 > N Box  > Sony M-10
mk4 > N Box > Sony M-10

Offline 2manyrocks

  • Trade Count: (12)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1664
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #52 on: February 19, 2015, 03:04:34 PM »
FWIW, I have AT853s and the DPA4061s are a clear upgrade.  I could hear the difference instantly.  Gutbucket's 8 points in favor of the 4060s make sense to me. 

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • Gender: Male
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #53 on: February 28, 2015, 02:24:03 PM »
I just want to say from the Schoeps side of things that the MK 2S or MK 2H would almost certainly be preferable to the MK 2 in this type of application, even (or perhaps especially) if what you want is flat response.

When you're using omnidirectional microphones in a reverberant space and you're not close to the sound source(s), the published frequency response curves don't apply. Or at least, they need considerable interpretation, since they only show the microphone's response to sound that arrives from directly in front of the capsule. Most studio omnidirectional microphones, because of their physical size, are only really omnidirectional up to a certain frequency, and then their pickup pattern begins to narrow. Of course the front of the capsule is the center of that narrow pickup angle, so the frequency response for the MK 2 LOOKS flat--and it really IS that flat if the sound source is close to the mike and directly in front of it.

But that isn't the situation you have when using a pair of omnis to make stereo recordings from the audience area of a performance venue. In that situation, the reflected sound predominates over the direct sound, so the angles of arrival, on average, are far more diverse than they would be if you were recording a narrow sound source close up. If you use microphones that are flat on axis in that more distant, diffuse type of situation, the recordings can tend to sound dark and maybe even muddy.

That is what the MK 2S and MK 2H (and many other omnidirectional microphones that have rising response on axis) are designed for. The average of their on- and off-axis response is flat, matching the ratio of direct to reflected sound that you're picking up. Sure, if you use them close to the sound source and/or in a dry acoustic, they'll pick up sound mostly on axis so they'll have some extra sizzle on top that you may not want. But that's what the MK 2 was designed for.

Does that make sense to people? It's not at all unique to Schoeps; it's a basic concept about recording with omnidirectional microphones that I wish more people understood.

--best regards

P.S. for extra credit: Very few professional omnidirectional condenser microphones are ultra-miniature, partly because of the obvious signal-to-noise issues but also because the usual working concept of recording with omnidirectional microphones is to WANT the microphone to have some directivity at high frequencies. You don't normally want to pick up reverberant, off-axis sound with the high frequencies at full volume; that clutters and confuses the result. So having identical high-frequency response at all angles isn't traditionally considered a virtue in an omnidirectional microphone, except by the marketing departments of certain manufacturers. In fact, the most historically highly revered omnidirectional microphones (the Neumann M 50 and its various successors and imitators) have pressure transducers embedded in 40 mm spheres specifically to increase the difference between frontal response and the response from all other directions, and to extend that directivity downward toward the midrange. That comes from many decades of practical experience in making live recordings from a distance.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 04:28:11 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15683
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #54 on: March 02, 2015, 01:52:42 AM »
[treading carefully]
I respectfully have a couple issues with just the extra credit part, and I value your thoughts on this-
 
First, keep in mind that the original poster is mounting the microphones onto the surface of an ~8" diameter spheroidal sound-absorbent baffle.  That microphone arrangement method is the most common way sub-miniature omnis are used for music recording around here at TS, and the only way many members use them.  And that's going to create a much larger far off-axis response difference than a omni embedded in a 40mm acrylic sphere, due to significant differences in size and acoustic properties of the materials, both increasing that directionality and extending it farther down into the lower-midrange.

Second, I remain open and ready to be convinced of the value of the "usual working concept of recording with omnidirectional microphones", but I find it's not the highest-frequencies but the midrange and especially upper midrange where a directional level difference is valuable.  When I have separate control over the sound from the sides and back compared to the direct sound from in front, it almost always works best to cut the midrange and especially presence range but increase high-frequency energy significantly from all the non-front directions (and low bass).  A sort of 'loudness curve' seems to work best and sounds most natural to me. That curve doesn't resemble the difference in response between on-axis and average off-axis response of typical non-miniature sdc omnis at all, which is more like a low-pass filter with a pretty high corner frequency (the M50 gets closer).

I also like the concept of a truly omnidirectional omni which I can use that way, or change the response as I choose and make it directional in all sorts of ways to differing degrees- like including embedding in small spheres, or placing near absorbant baffles, or mounting directly onto hard boundaries. 

Am I both incorrectly interpreting my experience AND it it's a fortunate coincidence that although imposed by the physical size of their diaphrams, the difference in direct and diffuse responses of sdc omnis occurs in the correct frequency range and has the correct shape and level to achieve the acoustic response we want for recording from a distance?

Isn't similarity of frequency response on and off-axis a basic design goal for directional microphones? I'm not asking rhetorically, It might be that shaped response differences are desirable in directional mics as well, for the same reasons.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15683
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #55 on: March 04, 2015, 10:48:35 AM »
^^^
Just want emphasize that I'm not trying to be a contrarian here.  I'm very interested in your thoughts on this Mr. Satz.

This is what I was trying to get at in the thread titled: Cardioids which are most natural sounding off-axis? On-axis sound secondary, before the discussion died without much talk about these particular aspects. Specifically in these two posts:

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=169175.msg2102771#msg2102771

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=169175.msg2103095#msg2103095
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (40)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4095
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #56 on: March 04, 2015, 05:11:42 PM »
[treading carefully]
I respectfully have a couple issues with just the extra credit part, and I value your thoughts on this-
 
First, keep in mind that the original poster is mounting the microphones onto the surface of an ~8" diameter spheroidal sound-absorbent baffle.  That microphone arrangement method is the most common way sub-miniature omnis are used for music recording around here at TS, and the only way many members use them.  And that's going to create a much larger far off-axis response difference than a omni embedded in a 40mm acrylic sphere, due to significant differences in size and acoustic properties of the materials, both increasing that directionality and extending it farther down into the lower-midrange.

Second, I remain open and ready to be convinced of the value of the "usual working concept of recording with omnidirectional microphones", but I find it's not the highest-frequencies but the midrange and especially upper midrange where a directional level difference is valuable.  When I have separate control over the sound from the sides and back compared to the direct sound from in front, it almost always works best to cut the midrange and especially presence range but increase high-frequency energy significantly from all the non-front directions (and low bass).  A sort of 'loudness curve' seems to work best and sounds most natural to me. That curve doesn't resemble the difference in response between on-axis and average off-axis response of typical non-miniature sdc omnis at all, which is more like a low-pass filter with a pretty high corner frequency (the M50 gets closer).

I also like the concept of a truly omnidirectional omni which I can use that way, or change the response as I choose and make it directional in all sorts of ways to differing degrees- like including embedding in small spheres, or placing near absorbant baffles, or mounting directly onto hard boundaries. 

Am I both incorrectly interpreting my experience AND it it's a fortunate coincidence that although imposed by the physical size of their diaphrams, the difference in direct and diffuse responses of sdc omnis occurs in the correct frequency range and has the correct shape and level to achieve the acoustic response we want for recording from a distance?

Isn't similarity of frequency response on and off-axis a basic design goal for directional microphones? I'm not asking rhetorically, It might be that shaped response differences are desirable in directional mics as well, for the same reasons.

Earthworks QTC series are very small diaphragm and extremely uniform response on- and off-axis.  I consider them the gold standard for omnis, at least equal in quality if not in some respects superior to DPA or Schoeps.  Not trying to stir the pot, just one man's opinion.
http://www.earthworksaudio.com/microphones/qtc-series-2/
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.
- Gustav Mahler

Acoustic Recording Techniques
Team Classical
Team Line Audio
Team DPA

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • Gender: Male
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #57 on: March 04, 2015, 09:49:06 PM »
Gutbucket wrote:

> the original poster is mounting the microphones onto the surface of an ~8" diameter spheroidal sound-absorbent baffle. That microphone arrangement method is the most common way sub-miniature omnis are used for music recording around here at TS, and the only way many members use them.

Hmm, yes. I think I'm familiar with this type of spheroid--it has an uncannily similarity to that which many of us carry around on our necks, no?

My own recordings with omnis have been A/B with no solid object between the mikes, and that's the type of use for which I claim that having reduced off-axis response at high frequencies is valuable. I have no direct experience with "head-related" stereo recording, except for listening to binaural recordings over headphones, and some stereo sphere recordings made by Jerry Bruck using Schoeps microphones.

So on principle I'm not going to argue back. For that matter, people use all kinds of microphones with non-ideal characteristics, and they sometimes learn to make (or luck into making) good recordings with them nonetheless.

That said, I don't know of any professional-quality dummy head or sphere recording system that uses free-field-equalized (i.e. flat on axis) pressure transducers. They all use diffuse-field-equalized transducers, which, when measured in a free field on axis, show a rise of several dB at high frequencies depending on size. So I would be really surprised if the MK 2 were the best choice among Schoeps capsules for this application; I would still think that the MK 2 S would be distinctly preferable--for some people, maybe even the MK 3, depending on how they were oriented during recording.

--best regards
« Last Edit: March 04, 2015, 09:52:38 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15683
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #58 on: March 05, 2015, 12:28:28 PM »
Thanks.   I value your expertise, experience and contributions here highly, and figure you're my best shot at digging deeper into this!

The free-field verses diffuse-field eq aspects I totally agree with, and I noted the head-mounted technique only as clarification of how the OP is using any of the microphones mentioned in this thread, which will effect response more strongly than off-axis differences due to capsule size.

However, although off-topic to the thread, what I'm really most interested in is discussing the part quoted below, in regards to the broader issue of on-axis vs off-axis response differences in general, in which A-B omni technique falls-

DSatz wrote:

> [snip] the usual working concept of recording with omnidirectional microphones is to WANT the microphone to have some directivity at high frequencies. You don't normally want to pick up reverberant, off-axis sound with the high frequencies at full volume; that clutters and confuses the result. So having identical high-frequency response at all angles isn't traditionally considered a virtue in an omnidirectional microphone, except by the marketing departments of certain manufacturers. In fact, the most historically highly revered omnidirectional microphones (the Neumann M 50 and its various successors and imitators) have pressure transducers embedded in 40 mm spheres specifically to increase the difference between frontal response and the response from all other directions, and to extend that directivity downward toward the midrange. That comes from many decades of practical experience in making live recordings from a distance.

Below is the jist of what I'm interested in, addressing that part. Quoting from my previous post-

"I find it's not the highest-frequencies but the midrange and especially upper midrange where a directional level difference is valuable.  When I have separate control over the sound from the sides and back compared to the direct sound from in front, it almost always works best to cut the midrange and especially presence range but increase high-frequency energy significantly from all the non-front directions (and low bass).  A sort of 'loudness curve' seems to work best and sounds most natural to me. That curve doesn't resemble the difference in response between on-axis and average off-axis response of typical non-miniature sdc omnis at all, which is more like a low-pass filter with a pretty high corner frequency (the M50 gets closer)."

And this (slightly rephrased for clarity)-
"is it a fortunate coincidence that although it's a 'side-effect' imposed by the physical size of their diaphragms, the difference in on-axis verses off-axis responses of non-miniature omnis just happens to occur in the correct frequency range and has the correct shape and level to achieve the acoustic on-verses-off-axis response we'd most like to have?" 

I can understand that a shaped response off-axis verses on-axis might be desirable for both directional microphones and omnis, rather than having an identical frequency response from all angles, with only level differences when moving off axis for a directional microphone.  But I'm looking for some deeper justification for the rolled-off off-axis upper response of omnis being most appropriate response for acoustical rather than historical reasons.  Partly because it needs to counter my personal experience that it's upper midrange and not the upper high-frequency range where increased directionality is truly appropriate and useful for omnis.  It's one reason I suspect the M-50's became more highly valued over other omnis where it's use is appropriate- being closer to an optimal on-verses-off-axis response for those situations.

Here's a new way of phrasing the question: Ignoring all historical and current mechanical manufacturing constraints, what would be the most desirable polar response, allowed to vary with frequency, for an ideal microphone designed to be used in situations where a stereo array of M-50 microphones has historically been most appropriate?

The links above to my posts in the other threads here are questioning is same aspect, exploring the shape of that response difference in a bit more detail.  I've never gotten good answers or discussion of those things either here or at GS when I attempted to discuss it over there long ago.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2015, 12:41:58 PM by Gutbucket »
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • Gender: Male
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #59 on: March 06, 2015, 08:26:47 PM »
I don't think that the answer to your question is likely to come from any form of theoretical analysis that I'm aware of, although the type of omni that you're describing was designed in a laboratory (NWDR's--and then Neumann got the contract to manufacture the M 50 for them). As far as I'm aware it was a completely pragmatic design, not a theoretically-based one.

So I think it's fair to say that this type of microphone is its own model or ideal, in effect.

The one thing that has varied significantly in this design has been the capsules--Neumann used numerous different types in the different versions of the M 50/M 50a/M 50b/M50 c, and yet others in their latter-day recreations. Initially the capsules were fully equalized for the diffuse sound field, but fairly soon the curves became less highly emphasized on axis.

That might be due to the capsule types that Neumann happened to be making for other purposes at any given time, and/or to the difference between mono and stereo recording practices--no one would ever record stereo from the distances that were sometimes used for pickup of large-scale performances in the pre-stereo era, and the full diffuse-field equalization gives harsh, metallic-sounding results when used at conventional A/B stereo recording distances. But German broadcasters were required to use mono-compatible stereo recording methods, so it seems that this type of microphone passed out of favor altogether for a while, until A/B stereo and "Decca Tree" recording techniques became more prominent outside of Germany.

Do you know Martin Schneider's AES paper from 2001, "Omnis and Spheres - Revisited"? It's available for download from Neumann's Web site as "lect0043.pdf".

--best regards

P.S.: As you know, any first-order pattern can be created by summing the signals from a coincident omni and figure-8 pair in various proportions. As you may also know, some years ago Jörg Wuttke at Schoeps came up with the idea of breaking this down into three frequency ranges so that the summing formulas (and thus the resulting pickup patterns) could be made frequency-dependent at will. This was implemented with digital signal processing; specific equalization could also be dialed in to the various frequency ranges. The system was unfortunately quite expensive, but it was by far the best "microphone emulator" ever made, and as with M/S, it could be used either during recording or in post-production ("choose the microphones after the session is over"). -- More recently, Schoeps has come out with a software-based version of this approach (http://www.schoeps.de/en/products/categories/polarflex) which wouldn't be too expensive for someone who already has pairs of their omni and figure-8 capsules.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2015, 08:29:38 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15683
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Thinking about taking the Schoeps or AKG actives plunge. Best options?
« Reply #60 on: March 13, 2015, 01:21:12 PM »
I am aware of Martin Schneider's AES paper from 2001 and will probably revisit it, it's been a long time since I read it.

Reading the information available on the Schoeps website for the Polarflex system has been very informative.  That is exactly the kind of tool needed to answer the questions I'm posing above in a empirical, non-theoretical way.   Can you point me to any discussion of how users have found it to be most useful to them, or other 'application notes'?

Polarflex is pretty much an answer to the first of two questions I recently asked of the ambisonic research experts on the 'sursound' mailing list,  concerning tools which could do similar things for 'virtual' microphones derived from ambisonic recordings.  I asked:

Can anyone point me to B-format tools which can produce a virtual
microphone output which has the following specifications?

1) Specify a changing polar response that varies by frequency, morphing
smoothly between two specified first-order patterns set at two specific
frequencies.

2) Specify a changing frequency response that varies between two user
specified equalization curves: a direct on-axis curve and a 180-degree
off-axis curve, so that the frequency response of the virtual microphone
varies smoothly by the angle of incidence.



Reading about the signal processing technique used by the Schoeps CMIT microphones has also been enlightening and informative.  I was aware of the CMIT 5 U, but only noticed the superCMIT 2 U after checking for more detail on how the system works.  These seem to be 'shotgun mics' which might actually have more application for music recording from a distance (as so often done around here due to setup constraints) than traditional shotguns that traditionally have such badly compromised off-axis behavior.  Any thoughts on that?

Thank you very much for all your help with this!
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.168 seconds with 86 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF