Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?  (Read 3340 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline hotdog

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 157
  • Gender: Male
Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« on: December 26, 2018, 11:44:49 AM »
Hey folks looking for any input on a set of mk3 / mk2 Omni caps pros / cons etc
Just thinking about grabbing a pair much thanks
Schoeps MK4/ MK41vs//active /Nbox
> 702> 744t

Offline noahbickart

  • phishrabbi
  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 2192
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #1 on: December 26, 2018, 11:46:31 AM »
I run the mk3 (now relabeled mk2xs). The HF boost works very well for "what we do."

I'll be running them (in addition to mk22, and mk41v pairs) at MSG for Phish this weekend, stay tuned for "tapes"
Recording:
Capsules: Schoeps mk41v (x2), mk4v (x2), mk22 (x2), mk3 (x2), mk21 & mk8
Cables: 2x nbob KCY, 1 pair nbob actives, Darktrain 2 and 4 channel KCY extensions:
Preamps:    Schoeps VMS 02iub, Naiant Littlebox, Naiant IPA, Sound Devices Mixpre6
Recorders: Sound Devices Mixpre6, Sony PCM m10

Home Playback: Mytek DSD 192> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline hotdog

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 157
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2018, 12:05:56 PM »
Perfect perfect I'll be right next to you lol
Schoeps MK4/ MK41vs//active /Nbox
> 702> 744t

Offline H₂O

  • Trade Count: (27)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #3 on: December 26, 2018, 12:41:14 PM »
mk2s and mk5 (in omni mode) are very nice sounding when running at a distance


the base mk2 is designed to be run close to the source and can sound kind of stark when run at a distance IMO
Music can at the least least explain you and at the most expand you
LMA Recordings

List

Offline noahbickart

  • phishrabbi
  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 2192
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2018, 02:48:18 PM »
Perfect perfect I'll be right next to you lol

If you’d like to borrow them one evening feel free.
Recording:
Capsules: Schoeps mk41v (x2), mk4v (x2), mk22 (x2), mk3 (x2), mk21 & mk8
Cables: 2x nbob KCY, 1 pair nbob actives, Darktrain 2 and 4 channel KCY extensions:
Preamps:    Schoeps VMS 02iub, Naiant Littlebox, Naiant IPA, Sound Devices Mixpre6
Recorders: Sound Devices Mixpre6, Sony PCM m10

Home Playback: Mytek DSD 192> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline lsd2525

  • Trade Count: (17)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2697
  • Gender: Male
  • Eschew obfuscation
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #5 on: December 26, 2018, 03:07:17 PM »
You guys don't get a lot of hall boom running those in an arena?
Mics: SKM184's; ADK A51s; AT4041; Line CM3; Superlux S502; CK91 active w/homebrew BB; AT853; Naiant X-X; Nak 300's
Recorders: M10; DR-60D; DR-701D

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13332
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #6 on: December 26, 2018, 03:13:06 PM »
As the others suggest:  MK3 (MK2xs) generally prefered for AUD with a diffuse-field response, MK2 on-stage with a free-field response.

I'm just posting to add something to consider in case you find a sweet deal on your less preferred variant and aren't averse to applying an EQ correction- The only difference between these is their native high-frequency response and its arguable that there are no two microphones which are otherwise more identical in this respect. One can be EQ'd to match the response of the other if you so choose. 
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<<

Offline noahbickart

  • phishrabbi
  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 2192
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #7 on: December 26, 2018, 06:15:18 PM »
You guys don't get a lot of hall boom running those in an arena?

You get more reflected sound than with more directional microphones, yes. They sound surprisingly good on their own, and, when mixed with a center m/s or x/y pair the result can be really fabulous.

Here's an example of the pure mk3 sound, spaced 60 cm AB, This is from Phish 12/28/17, "No Men in No Man's Land"
Schoeps mk3 (@ 60cm)> Nbob actives> Darktrain cables> Naiant PFA> Sound Devices Mixpre6 (mic in, Channels 1/2 @ 24bit/48 kHz)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rgCMKu7hvG5Pq_E4B1LFiEtDX4Wd4VEY
Recording:
Capsules: Schoeps mk41v (x2), mk4v (x2), mk22 (x2), mk3 (x2), mk21 & mk8
Cables: 2x nbob KCY, 1 pair nbob actives, Darktrain 2 and 4 channel KCY extensions:
Preamps:    Schoeps VMS 02iub, Naiant Littlebox, Naiant IPA, Sound Devices Mixpre6
Recorders: Sound Devices Mixpre6, Sony PCM m10

Home Playback: Mytek DSD 192> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (33)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 2755
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2018, 08:27:36 PM »
Any microphone can only pick up sound from the sound field where it is. That's all it can do; it can't respond to whatever may be going on elsewhere. There's this mistaken idea that you "aim" a microphone at some sound source/sources a distance away, and it will respond to whatever's there; that's fine for cameras and telescopes since light travels in straight lines. But it's not a good way to think about sound and microphones in most practical situations, since sound spreads out in all directions from its source, and bounces around way more than you might think.

If you record in an anechoic chamber, in free air space far away from any sound-reflecting objects, or in the immediate area of a sound source, then that's a "free" sound field. In those rare cases the straight line/optical metaphor more or less applies, and the MK 2 (which has flat, i.e. accurate, response on axis) is the capsule for you.

Free sound fields don't occur in audience locations in concert halls or other public performance venues, however. At points that are a surprisingly short distance from the sound sources in three-dimensional space, the reflected sound energy of a space adds up to roughly the same net amount as the direct sound. (That distance is called the "reverberation radius".) Schoeps' MK 2 H and MK 2 S capsules are designed for placement around there, since their response averages out to be flat when the prevailing sound field is a rough balance like that.

Those two capsules outsell the MK 2 by a considerable margin; this "semi-distant" type of recording is a common application for omnidirectional microphones--plus if you use either capsule type for relatively close-up recording (as in a studio--German studios use omnidirectional microphones more than American studios do, but they don't always mike as closely), the few dB of gentle high-frequency boost is rather pleasant sounding.

When your microphones are out in the audience area, the acoustical energy at their position is composed mainly of sound that has already undergone reflection off of various room surfaces and people and objects in the room. Thus your microphones are in a mainly "diffuse" sound field, in which the directions of arrival of various sound components will tend toward being random. And each original sound component will arrive along a complex set of paths of different lengths, so the relative times of arrival will be spread over some interval, rather than being "one-time" and sharply defined. In addition, all that bouncing around tends to absorb some of the high frequency content, though the amount and kind of this absorption depends greatly on the materials and people involved.

When an omnidirectional microphone with a "diffuse field" capsule such as the Schoeps MK 2 XS (known as the "MK 3" until recently) is placed in a diffuse sound field, the ordinary kind of published frequency response curve becomes largely irrelevant, since by industry-wide agreement, such graphs show the response that would occur in a free sound field. A free-field graph for a diffuse-field omni will show a high-frequency, on-axis rise--but you won't hear that rise unless you misuse the microphone by placing it in a free sound field or something like it. In a mainly diffuse sound field, only a small fraction of sound energy will arrive within the narrow range of angles where that high-frequency rise is shown on the graph--and among that small fraction, the earliest-arriving sound components will be the direct and "most nearly direct" sound (assuming that the engineer is awake and has oriented the microphones generally toward the sound sources). So that characteristic helps give a clearer impression of the direct sound, such as it is at that distance, while the overall response of the capsule or microphone is essentially flat (i.e. accurate) given the type of sound field that it is placed in.

None of this discussion makes much sense if you use a camera or telescope (optical/visual) metaphor for the way you think about microphones. Instead, consider where the microphone is, and realize that at best, it can only record what's going on where it is.

--best regards
« Last Edit: December 29, 2018, 05:04:28 AM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline kuba e

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 250
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #9 on: December 29, 2018, 01:52:34 PM »
Thank you DSatz. I have theoretical question, which I have already thought. In a case of recording PA music, does the house sound guy compensate the loss of high frequencies, as most of the audience are already in the diffuse field? If yes, should free-field microphone be suitable for audience PA recording?

Or sound guy don't need to compensate the loss of high frequencies because our brain can intuitively focus on direct sound and mute reverberate sounds in a real situation? And because our brain cannot handle this in a stereo playback, diffuse-field microphones are suitable for audience PA recording? (DSatz explained this here: http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=187714.msg2275788#msg2275788?

« Last Edit: December 29, 2018, 01:59:27 PM by kuba e »

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (33)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 2755
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #10 on: December 31, 2018, 12:37:10 AM »
House sound is designed for human consumption--ears and brains with a coupla million years of evolution going for them. We can sit in a mostly diffuse sound field and still make aural sense of what's going on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedence_effect is a big part of it; the rest is experience.

The same trick doesn't work for a pair of microphones, because they don't have a brain attached. The exception, of course, is "dummy head" recordings that are played back through headphones--they basically pass along to your ears and brain what they would receive if they were in that same place in the room.

By the way, another very useful tool when you're recording from a distance with omni mikes is accessory spheres that fit over the capsules, with their fronts flush with the front edge of the capsules. See https://schoeps.de/en/products/accessories/filters-pads/ka-40.html .

As the page implies, these are most often used with the MK 2 S and MK 2 H capsules. But that's because omni capsules are mostly sold to recording engineers who can place microphones wherever they want, which is more often near the "reverberation radius" that I mentioned before. As a result, the general recording business buys many more MK 2 S and MK 2 H than MK 2 XS. But the spheres can definitely be used with the MK 2 XS if the treble balance is to your liking.

(This type of sphere also works with the Schoeps MK 5 two-pattern capsule in its omnidirectional setting.)

--best regards
« Last Edit: December 31, 2018, 09:39:07 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline kuba e

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 250
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #11 on: December 31, 2018, 05:58:43 AM »
Many thanks for the explanation. I understand. The Wikipedia link is very good.
Sometimes it is good to remember that we are a million years evolution. When things do not work the way we want, like sometimes when recording.

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13332
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #12 on: December 31, 2018, 10:34:30 AM »
Complicating the situation, consider the oddity (in the sense of traditional recording) of recording a PA-reinforced performance from an audience perspective.  This is the elephant in the room with regards to the kind of recording most folks at Taperssection are doing, not particularly well understood or defined beyond the collective practical experience of "concert tapers".

A PA has two primary roles: The first is providing increased sound level. The second is directing that sonic energy.  Directing it increases its "effective" critical radius toward audience locations, which I think represents the more significant achievement of PA tech and the important one to this discussion.  I say "effective" because the the critical radius of each of the primary sound-sources on stage does not change.  What changes is a secondary source is introduced (the PA speakers) designed to radiate its direct sound in a very specific and controlled way, which must correspondingly extend the critical radius of this source in the direction of the audience while reducing it in all other directions. 

A primary sound source located on stage and radiating more or less omnidirectionally, will have a certain critical-radius based upon the properties of the room (mostly its size).  An omnidirectional PA in the same room would have about the same critical-radius.  A highly directional PA will not.  Advancement of PA tech has provided both increased directionally in a global sense as well as specific management of that increased directionality.  In many modern installations, the directivity is multi-faceted and optimized separately for specific parts of the room. This is very well understood from the PA engineering side of things, but less well understood on the recording side of things because the only folks recording PA's for other than measurement purposes are concert tapers.  PA recording is an odd subset of recording.  The same basic aspects apply, while a whole new set of conditions are imposed upon it.

I'd love to hear more about this from those working in modern sound reinforcement design, specifically if critical-radius or some similar measure is used as a performance metric for the PA, and if so, how far can it be effectively extended in venues common to live music taping using PA setups of various complexity.
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<<

Offline noahbickart

  • phishrabbi
  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 2192
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #13 on: December 31, 2018, 10:40:08 AM »
Recording:
Capsules: Schoeps mk41v (x2), mk4v (x2), mk22 (x2), mk3 (x2), mk21 & mk8
Cables: 2x nbob KCY, 1 pair nbob actives, Darktrain 2 and 4 channel KCY extensions:
Preamps:    Schoeps VMS 02iub, Naiant Littlebox, Naiant IPA, Sound Devices Mixpre6
Recorders: Sound Devices Mixpre6, Sony PCM m10

Home Playback: Mytek DSD 192> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline kuba e

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 250
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #14 on: January 01, 2019, 03:27:43 PM »
Gutbucket, thanks for adding. It is interesting what you write about PA. I am curious about PA critical-radius too. Not all PA recordings need to eq high end.

Psychoacoustic is interesting. I looked into the book about psychoacoustic. I wanted to read such book long ago. There is chart about how we perceive the sound in the free and diffuse field. Most probably know, but for someone like me it may be new. The chart x axis is frequency, the y is sound pressure level correction for diffuse field. The chart is saying how much we need to adjust the sound pressure level of the sound at given frequency in the diffuse field to hear it as loud as we hear it in the free field. The chart was measured for pure tones, the reality will be much more complicated. But it helped me to make an idea. The reason why we hear it this way is explained in previous DSatz post or you can read about it in details in the book Zwicker&Fastl, starting on page 205
https://books.google.cz/books?id=WLvtCAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=cs&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
By the way, it is nice that google offer big parts of books for free reading. I didn't know about it.

I was surprised that the capsule Schoeps MK 2XS for diffuse field adds up to 5db for high end. I don't have a good feel for the eq, I have always been careful. This is a good reason that I should not be afraid to add high end(my microphones are intended for free field).
« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 03:38:54 PM by kuba e »

Offline noahbickart

  • phishrabbi
  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 2192
  • Gender: Male
  • So now I wander over grounds of light...
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2019, 12:09:52 AM »
Phish 12/31/18 mk3 (2xs) AB 50cm:
http://bt.etree.org/details.php?torrentId=603603
Recording:
Capsules: Schoeps mk41v (x2), mk4v (x2), mk22 (x2), mk3 (x2), mk21 & mk8
Cables: 2x nbob KCY, 1 pair nbob actives, Darktrain 2 and 4 channel KCY extensions:
Preamps:    Schoeps VMS 02iub, Naiant Littlebox, Naiant IPA, Sound Devices Mixpre6
Recorders: Sound Devices Mixpre6, Sony PCM m10

Home Playback: Mytek DSD 192> McIntosh MC162> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-4XX / Beyerdynamic DT880

Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701 / Hifiman HE-400

Offline checht

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Gender: Male
  • Old and in the Way
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2019, 01:54:23 PM »
Any microphone can only pick up sound from the sound field where it is. That's all it can do; it can't respond to whatever may be going on elsewhere. There's this mistaken idea that you "aim" a microphone at some sound source/sources a distance away, and it will respond to whatever's there; that's fine for cameras and telescopes since light travels in straight lines. But it's not a good way to think about sound and microphones in most practical situations, since sound spreads out in all directions from its source, and bounces around way more than you might think.
[snip]
Instead, consider where the microphone is, and realize that at best, it can only record what's going on where it is.

--best regards

I've been grappling with shifting my cognitive model on this in relation to both capsule selection and configuration/alignment with primary sound source.

Please pardon my ignorance, but I've been wondering what role the pattern plays when recording in 'the usual' situation. Would it be the case that a more directional pattern's primarily impact would be on pick up of nearby sound sources (crowd noise)? DSatz, that was my takeaway from our previous conversation.

1. Following up on that conversation, I'm wondering if anyone here has thoughts on how that relates to aiming mics. I usually run a mstc64, a fixed ortf config. When located off-center in a venue, I end up wondering if I should point the centerline between the 2 caps straight ahead, or at the center of the stage.

2. For a related but separate question, given that we're recording the sound where the mic is (a shotgun won't improve ratio of direct to reflected sound), why not use omnis, which I believe are the most uncolored pattern. I guess this choice would result in more nearby sound; what would be other downsides?

Thanks for this thoughtful thread, which has already advanced my understanding quite a bit.

~Chris

Schoeps MK41s, MK4s (for sale)
Nbobs
Naiant IPA, PFA 60v
Sound Devices MP-6, Roland R-07

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13332
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2019, 05:34:44 PM »
Reverberant sound arrives from all directions equally, including the same direction as the direct sound of interest.  If recording from well back in the reverberant field far from the source of the direct sound, even a theoretically ideal super-directional microphone with an extremely narrow pickup pattern pointed directly at the source is going to pick up considerably more reverberant than direct sound.

In that case the best one can do is to seek to preserve whatever direct/reverberant ratio is represented by that on-axis directional microphone by being less sensitive to sound from other directions. The value of highly directional patterns in this regard is that they are less sensitive to non-reverberant sound arriving from other directions-  audience noise, reflections off walls, that is to say-  alternate direct sound sources and secondary reflections which arive off-axis from the primary source direction.   Just keep in mind that the reverberance from all sources arrives from all directions equally and will be picked up regardless of what you do with microphones at the recording position.

Directional microphones essentially act more like side-shades or blinders rather than as telescopic zoom lenses.

I'm wondering if anyone here has thoughts on how that relates to aiming mics. I usually run a mstc64, a fixed ortf config. When located off-center in a venue, I end up wondering if I should point the centerline between the 2 caps straight ahead, or at the center of the stage.

The key is to orient your microphone array so it is pointing at the apparent acoustic center, rather than the visual center.  Use your ears instead of your eyes to do this. Close your eyes and turn your head until the sound is as well balanced as possible Left/Right.  Point the microphone array in the same direction.  If off-center you will typically end up facing toward the closer PA, rather than toward center stage.  That's the essence of it, but if you wish to read more you can search TS for dedicated threads on it as this topic comes up regularly.

Quote
For a related but separate question, given that we're recording the sound where the mic is (a shotgun won't improve ratio of direct to reflected sound), why not use omnis, which I believe are the most uncolored pattern. I guess this choice would result in more nearby sound; what would be other downsides?

This can be a very good choice outdoors, where there are not as many reflections off internal walls which directional mics can help deal with indoors.  Nearby audience pickup is about the same indoors or out- omnis will pickup more of it, directional microphones less if it is coming from a less sensitive direction.  If the audience noise is on-axis, then a directional microphone will pick up just as much of it as an omni.

If you want to reduce pickup of direct and reflected sound from directions other than the direction toward the source of interest as much as possible, point your super or hypercardioids directly at the source(s) of interest.  Since this typically translates to very little angle between microphones, space the microphones further apart to compensate so that the stereo image will not collapse.  Check out the Improved PAS table which suggests the most appropriate spacing between microphones with this in mind given whatever pattern and angle you are using.  This won't pull-in more direct sound at your recording position nor increase the direct/indirect-sound ratio available available from that location, but it will make the most of it by being less sensitive to other directions from which there is just as much reverberation but considerably less desired direct sound arriving.

Other things to consider are what type of stereo sound you like- if you want more level-difference stereo aspects, or time-of-arrival spaced-omni stereo aspects or whatever balance between them.

Hope that makes sense.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 08:41:04 AM 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<<

Offline checht

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Gender: Male
  • Old and in the Way
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2019, 08:28:33 PM »
That omfp does make sense, and is much appreciated.

Thanks
Schoeps MK41s, MK4s (for sale)
Nbobs
Naiant IPA, PFA 60v
Sound Devices MP-6, Roland R-07

Offline beenjammin

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 70
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2019, 05:00:17 PM »
Phish 12/31/18 mk3 (2xs) AB 50cm:
http://bt.etree.org/details.php?torrentId=603603

These are really nice pulls and show off how lovely the Schoeps omni caps are.

I'm an avid user of the MK 2, which I use in AB ~40cm and in a Jecklin disk. I typically use a high frequency shelf, and adjust as needed. But I wonder: to emulate the MK2S and the other omni caps, should I use a peak filter?

 

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (33)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 2755
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #20 on: January 16, 2019, 06:28:24 PM »
You can use a peaking filter or a shelving filter. For reasons I can't explain, in the past I've chosen a peaking filter when taming some old recordings that I'd made with Neumann KM 83 microphones (free-field-equalized response like Schoeps MK 2 XS/MK 3), but a shelving filter whenever I've wanted to lift the treble a little.

But use your ears. Main thing is, don't overdo it; 2 dB goes a long way.

--best regards
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline jerryfreak

  • Trade Count: (27)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2728
  • I'm a llama! (taboot)
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #21 on: January 16, 2019, 06:50:22 PM »
(This type of sphere also works with the Schoeps MK 5 two-pattern capsule in its omnidirectional setting.)

--best regards

i wonder if a smaller sphere would work to make 4061s more directional. the diaphragms arent forward facing on them though. im using my 4061s more these days but boy they pick up the chatter
in:
small: MK4/4V > CMR > V3 or J.Williams Mod MicMan Jr or no pre at all >AD2K/R07/PCM-A10/Oade Warm 661/DR100-MKIII

smaller: 4061/4099 CORE or 4011/4018V> d:vice MMA



out:
home:Benchmark DAC1 HDR > Dynaudio BM15A active monitors
shop: Musical Fidelity VLink 192 Asynchronyous> coax> DAC1 > Rokit RP8 active monitors

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (31)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2880
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #22 on: January 16, 2019, 07:14:50 PM »
(This type of sphere also works with the Schoeps MK 5 two-pattern capsule in its omnidirectional setting.)

--best regards

i wonder if a smaller sphere would work to make 4061s more directional. the diaphragms arent forward facing on them though. im using my 4061s more these days but boy they pick up the chatter

The DPA 4060/4061 is perhaps the most top-to-bottom perfect omni pattern mic out there.  You are fighting a losing battle.  This is definitely not the mic to use around a chatty audience.  They pick up everything.  I only use mine up close on stage, or if not that close, in a setting where the audience is silent or (even better) not there at all.

Gutbucket has quite a bit of experience making APE spheres for the 4060/4061, but not for this purpose.  The short answer is this modification it isn't going to do what you want.  He can explain to you much better than I can about how APE spheres work, as can DSatz.  In the meantime, here is a somewhat-simple explanation on APE spheres from DPA, who sell them for their full-size 4006A omni:
https://www.dpamicrophones.com/accessories/acoustic-pressure-equalizer-ball-for-4006a
DPA 4061 | Line Audio CM3 | Naiant X-Q | AT 853
Naiant PFAs | Shure FP24
Zoom F6 | Sony PCM-M10

Team Line Audio
Quote
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.    ///    If a composer could say what he had to say in words he would not bother trying to say it in music.
- Gustav Mahler

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13332
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #23 on: January 17, 2019, 09:53:10 AM »
All ominis are.. well, omnidirectional for the most part. Those with larger diaphragms, larger housings, or sphere attachments are somewhat directional at treble frequencies, but in practical terms that limited directionality is really more like a difference of timbre on and off axis than a reduction of sensitivity off-axis.  In my experience you'll hear the same chatter off-axis, yet slightly less present sounding and clearly articulated compared to an on-axis source.  It retains the "natural soundingness" in all directions but shifts a bit more focus toward the on-axis direction.

This quality is imparted from the geometry of the sphere.  When installed in a sphere a miniature 4060 omni is no longer miniature.  If you were to make a dummy housing with the same geometry as a 4006 and mount a 4060 flush in the end of the cylinder so that just the grid extended out the end, it would produce a similar polar pattern to the 4006, or most any other omni with the same size capsule and body.

[edit- typical sphere attachments are larger in diameter than a 4006. Because of that, when using one the polar pattern in the frequency range effected will be more strongly affected because of that larger size.  A sphere is useful compared to other shapes because with the microphone mounted flush it presents a smooth continuous surface all the way around without any diffractive edges or other features until the back side where the microphone body or cable exits.  Because of that it provides the smoothest pattern transitions compared to alternate shapes]

BTW, the 406x is essentially end-address and should be thought of as such when doing odd things like this with it, regardless of the orientation of the miniature element inside its tiny housing.  However as voltronic mentions, when used in free space without anything altering it's size, it is essentially omnidirectional up to the limits of hearing, so in normal use its orientation really doesn't matter much.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2019, 06:11:37 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<<

Offline beenjammin

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 70
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #24 on: January 17, 2019, 04:57:37 PM »
You can use a peaking filter or a shelving filter. For reasons I can't explain, in the past I've chosen a peaking filter when taming some old recordings that I'd made with Neumann KM 83 microphones (free-field-equalized response like Schoeps MK 2 XS/MK 3), but a shelving filter whenever I've wanted to lift the treble a little.

But use your ears. Main thing is, don't overdo it; 2 dB goes a long way.

--best regards

Thanks!

I have another Schoeps omni question. I understand that each cap is an iteration of the MK2, with differences in high frequency sensitivity. But the MK H has that metal ring around it. I recall reading somewhere that this capsule was developed in collaboration with Onno Schultze. What, if any, effect does the ring have? I believe Schultze was very much impressed by the miniature DPA 4060, might the ring help to make the Schoeps capsule behave as if it were smaller than it is?

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (33)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 2755
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #25 on: January 19, 2019, 12:13:49 AM »
To my knowledge the ring on the MK 2 H has no particular acoustical effect. You can regard it as a visual enhancement if you like.

--best regards
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 12:15:31 AM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (33)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 2755
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #26 on: January 20, 2019, 04:56:21 PM »
checht, I just now noticed your reply #16 above, in which you asked two questions. The first one, I don't have much experience with, since I am generally the person paid (or volunteering, but in any case officially designated) to record a concert, so I generally get to negotiate my miking positions, and can make sure that they are either centered or symmetrically spaced. If I had to record from a single, off-center position, I don't know of any way to correct for the various problems which that would cause, and I would only do it for documentary purposes at best. (I can think of only one time I ever did that; the recording was never used.)

Your other question was:

> given that we're recording the sound where the mic is (a shotgun won't improve ratio of direct to reflected sound), why not use omnis, which I believe are the most uncolored pattern. I guess this choice would result in more nearby sound; what would be other downsides?

A directional microphone's pattern causes its sensitivity to vary based on the angle of arrival of each sound component. If the microphone is located where the predominant energy arriving on-axis (or nearly so) is direct, then its directional pattern will help bring out the direct sound.

But if it's farther back, where "on-axis or nearly so" no longer works as a proxy for "direct", then you'd have to compare its on- vs. off-axis frequency response to see what the mike will do to the arriving sound. If that frequency response is uniform (setting aside the relative attenuation that the pattern creates for off-axis sound), then all the sound components should blend together more or less smoothly. If the off-axis response is peaky or uneven, then as it becomes the main source of signals from that microphone, the more you will hear that uneven response acting as a filter on the sound. (Unfortunately most manufacturers don't publish the diffuse-field response of their microphones; you have to infer it from the polar diagrams--and many manufacturers don't even publish those except at 1 kHz, where they mostly all look good.)

In that respect, a good figure-8 is in principle the closest to ideal--except that it is bi-directional, so it really tests the assumption that "you are so far back that there's no point in preferring the front of the microphone" and in practice, there is usually at least _some_ advantage to favoring front-arriving sound; therefore a good supercardioid usually gives better results in practice. An omni isn't omni at high frequencies (I'm talking about microphones with studio-quality signal-to-noise ratios) so it favors the front a little, and/or dulls the sides and back, which is useful in most situations--but if you are in the audience area and have audience noise to deal with, then that's not a good choice, nor are "wide cardioids" or the like, unfortunately.

Finally, the very worst choice is shotgun microphones since their off-axis high-frequency response is so wildly uneven; variations of 12 to 15 dB within a single octave, and at angles of incidence just a few degrees apart from one another, are not unheard of. In addition, the diffuse field response of shotgun microphones integrated across all angles of arrival tends to be very dull--whereas with a good figure-8 or supercardioid this is not the case. Using shotgun microphones to record anything from a distance in a reverberant space is a basic misunderstanding of what such microphones are designed to do.

Now, like a stopped clock being right twice a day, good recordings can occur with any equipment if it is generally working and in the optimal place at the right time. But if you can only bring one setup to a concert, and you're looking to maximize your chances of getting a good recording rather than relying on a hit-or-miss approach, I think that good supercardioids give you the best odds overall. I used MK 41 for many years and have recently become fond of the MK 41 V.

Your MSTC is certainly nothing to sneeze at, though. Its MK 4 capsules are the small, single-diaphragm type, and have very good polar response across the frequency range. Again for recording in stereo with cardioid microphones, that type of capsule, with some spacing and a decent angle of separation (not 90 degrees, please!) is the best approach--while the worst use of cardioids for stereo in a reverberant sound field would be the large, coincident dual-diaphragm type at angles less than, say, 120 degrees which unfortunately is the great majority of stereo microphones in practice.

--best regards
« Last Edit: January 26, 2019, 03:36:30 AM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline seethreepo

  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 906
  • Gender: Male
  • Rub it and see
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #27 on: January 20, 2019, 05:45:39 PM »
(This type of sphere also works with the Schoeps MK 5 two-pattern capsule in its omnidirectional setting.)

--best regards

i wonder if a smaller sphere would work to make 4061s more directional. the diaphragms arent forward facing on them though. im using my 4061s more these days but boy they pick up the chatter

 

Gutbucket has quite a bit of experience making APE spheres for the 4060/4061, but not for this purpose.  The short answer is this modification it isn't going to do what you want.  He can explain to you much better than I can about how APE spheres work, as can DSatz.  In the meantime, here is a somewhat-simple explanation on APE spheres from DPA, who sell them for their full-size 4006A omni:
https://www.dpamicrophones.com/accessories/acoustic-pressure-equalizer-ball-for-4006a

where are the mics mounted if you use an ape sphere?  and what differentiates the ape from a Jecklin disc is it a function of the material they are made of?
Mics: Sound Professionals - SP-CMC-8 , Studio Projects SPC4, Beyerdynamic ck930 , Marcsounds binaurals
Pre amps: Beyerdynamic MV-1 ,  Naiant IPA
Recorders:  Edirol R-44, Edirol R-09HR, Roland  R-05, Tascam  Dr-2d

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13332
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #28 on: January 21, 2019, 02:21:43 PM »
where are the mics mounted if you use an ape sphere?

The sphere is mounted on the microphone (or in the case of miniature omnis, the microphone mounted in the sphere) so as to have the sound opening orifice of the microphone as flush as possible with the surface of the sphere.  The idea is that the sphere presents a hard, smooth continuous surface without significant breaks or discontinuities which would create diffraction points.

One reason I use makeshift spheres on the miniature DPA omnis is as a way of getting them to behave like larger-bodied omnis with respect to pattern.  With a spherical "perfect geometry" housing they then produce an arguably more idealized "typical omni pattern" than omnis with larger diaphragms or housings, which do not use a smooth spherical shape.


As to the suitability of a truly omnidirectional pattern microphone or a pattern which is brighter on-axis and less-bright off-axis, remember that concert taping of a PA from a distance is an unusual undertaking compared to most forms of recording.  The entire intent of the PA is to "present a more up close and proximal sound to the listener" even when the listener is not up close.  When designed correctly, the frequency balance of the direct sound from the PA is managed so that regardless of position within the venue the upper frequency content does not drop off as much over distance as it will compared to a on stage source which is not reinforced through a PA.  It still follows the laws of acoustics, but the goal-posts have been moved by the introduction of a PA which is designed to partly compensate for "sound as perceived at a distance" with clever design.

That all means that for an omni used for PA recording at a distance, the ideal difference in response on-axis versus off-axis will be partly determined by these kinds of PA attributes and their variations, in addition to the acoustic attributes of the hall and one's recording position in it which come into play in a non PA-amplified situation.  Although harder to actualize with omnis, what I feel is most applicable in this regard is the difference between close verses more distant portions of the audience itself.  That is to say differences in near verses more-distant off-axis sound sources. The audience sources are not reinforced through the PA and do not have its unique acoustic properties but act as normal acoustic sources where high frequencies become more attenuated with distance.  We can balance that to some degree by raising the microphones higher above the audience and/or pointing directional microphones upwards towards the PA.  Blumlein crossed fig-8's is interesting in this way as the two crossed 8's become increasingly less sensitive to sound arriving from around +/- 45 degrees or more below (and above) the horizontal plane.  The fig-8's are deaf to direct sound from directly above and below and become progressively more sensitive towards the horizontal plane.

Quote
and what differentiates the ape from a Jecklin disc is it a function of the material they are made of?

Yes, different materials in that pressure spheres are acoustically hard surfaced where as Jecklin disks are ideally sonically absorbent, but mostly the differentiation is intended use, size (and thus frequency range), and arrangement.  Jecklin disk is a stereo technique.   The omni spheres we are talking about are singe microphone modifications and relatively small.  The two begin to cross-paths in stereo microphones which use two omnis embedded in either side of a larger sphere, typically close to head-sized, such as the Schoeps KFM-6.
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<<

Offline seethreepo

  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 906
  • Gender: Male
  • Rub it and see
Re: Schoeps Omni caps which one ?
« Reply #29 on: January 21, 2019, 08:24:14 PM »
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I had wrongly assumed the 🎤 was mounted to the outside of the ball.
Mics: Sound Professionals - SP-CMC-8 , Studio Projects SPC4, Beyerdynamic ck930 , Marcsounds binaurals
Pre amps: Beyerdynamic MV-1 ,  Naiant IPA
Recorders:  Edirol R-44, Edirol R-09HR, Roland  R-05, Tascam  Dr-2d

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.307 seconds with 71 queries.
© 2002-2019 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF