Topic: Supercard or Hypercard Mics - Need Suggestions

[Tommy-boy]

Hi,

I'm looking for recommendations for mid-priced super/hyper cards.

Some Background
I am in the process of preparing for some jazz big band recordings I will do from the audience.  I've recorded several concerts before - but I've generally been engaged to record these concerts.  This has meant that I could bring proper stands / mics and setup pretty much as I wanted (most of the time).

My son is in a middle school jazz band that travels for concerts at other schools.  I'm not being engaged by these schools to record.  So, I'd like to record from the audience.  For his last season, I simply brought my R-44 along and used the built in mics.  I captured the events, but there is certainly a lot of room for improvement.  Although I could use cards to record, I'd like the option of having mics with a little more directivity.

I think I'm OK in the equipment department, except for hyper or supercard mics.   I'd like to get a pair that has a relatively flat freq response and reasonably low noise floor.  If the capsule could be decoupled from the mic body for a less intrusive sight line, that would be a huge plus.  I'd like stay in the mid-price range if possible, but am not ruling out more expensive mics. 

In the mid-priced range, looks like the contenders are:

• AKG Blue Line with a CK93 capsule.
• Audio Technica 4053b

Questions:

• Both the AKG and AT have removable capsules, however neither appear to have active cables offered as part of the product line up.  Are there any 3rd parties that make active cables?
• Are their other super or hyper cards I should consider?
• Although I have some mic mounts and positioners, any thoughts on maintaining a low profile would be appreciated.

Any thoughts would be most welcome.

-Tom




For Reference, I have the following

• Sound Devices 788T
• Roland R-44
• Schoeps - I already have some Schoeps bodies (4 CMC6s), capsules (MK5s, MK21s, MK8), active cables, etc... - but not their supercard capsule (mk41).  The MK41 has a significant bass roll-off that appears to make it unsuitable for the task I'm looking to tackle.
• Sennheiser e914 pair.
• Sennheiser 421 pair
• Shure KSM 141 pair
• Shure 57s and 58s
• Audio Technica 4050 pair
• Naiant X-O pair
• Cascade Fathead II pair
• Flea47
• Mic mounts and position equipment (ORTF bar, Wide ORTF bar, Grace spacebars, etc..)

[stevetoney]

Busman BCS1 or BCS2?

AKG-463 or 483?

[Cobiwan]

Why not use your Schoeps MK5 or MK21> active cable > cmc 6? Do you have to run hyper/super card? Can you record on stage or stage lip? I would think the crowd would be a little easier than at a rock concert.

[Gutbucket]

If you are okay with runing a coincient pattern setup, you could use your existing MK5 and MK8 in a Mid/Side configuration.  The resulting virtual L/R microphone pattern will resemble crossed supercardioids.  You only need a way of rigging them one directly over the other.

The MK41 has a significant bass roll-off that appears to make it unsuitable for the task I'm looking to tackle.

Considerably less so than most more moderately priced supercardioids if more than your other Schoeps capsules except the MK8.  It's one of the most respected and especially well behaved supercardioids manufactured.  Absent corrective equalization, any pressure gradient microphone will exibit some degree of low end roll-off at a distance, a figure-8 with the steepest roll-off, a hyper second steepest, and a supercardioid more so than a cardioid.  The MK41's exemplary polar behavior makes it far easier to compensate for that inherant roll-off using EQ than many other supercardioids.

The Microtech Gefell M21 is another excellent SDC supercardioid.  I have a pair of those and don't find them lacking for low end response.

Either of those can be actively powered, the Schoeps with several different options, the MG only recently so via Niaint gear.  Neither are mid-priced, however they are the supercardioids I consider to be two of the best available.

The best performing inexpensive 'bang for the buck' supercardioid I know of (and use regularly) is the ADK TL, which is a switchable pattern LDC (8, super, cardioid, omni) but is in no way shape or form unobtrusive.  They are large, heavy and obvious LDCs, but quite clean sounding and well behaved, somewhat similar in sound to the AKG414.  I use them almost exclusively in the supercardioid pattern for on-stage recording these days.  They are very well regarded aroudn here but aren't manufactured anymore. However they occasionally pop up around here in the YardSale for around $500 a pair or so and can also be found on Ebay.  I've been lucky to pick up a couple extra, in the last few years, both new old stock and never used on Ebay for around $100-$200 each.  Few other low-to-mid price range switchable LDCs seem feature a super/hyper pattern.

The mics tonedeaf listed are mid-priced SDCs options.  I've not used them but don't find them to have as smooth a response as the MK41, M21 or the cheap but large TL in the recordings I've heard.

[Gutbucket]

MK5s
Shure KSM 141

I've always wondered why manufacturer's who make acoustically switchable microphone such as these, switchable between omni and cardioid, don't instead make them switchable between cardioid and supercardioid, or subcard/card/supercard if they wanted to get 3-way fancy like the MK6.  That would seem to be much more useful in adapting the microphone to various recording situations which would benefit from slightly different yet similar polar responses.  If an omni is called for rather than a cardioid, that's sort of an entirely different deal to begin with.

[Tommy-boy]

Busman BCS1 or BCS2?

AKG-463 or 483?

Thanks for the other suggestions.  Looking into the 463.  Couldn't find 483 on their website yet.  I was avoiding Busman as I couldn't find any freq plot info, and I'd prefer darker (meaning grey/black, not yellow) mics to be less visually intrusive.

[Tommy-boy]

Why not use your Schoeps MK5 or MK21> active cable > cmc 6? Do you have to run hyper/super card? Can you record on stage or stage lip? I would think the crowd would be a little easier than at a rock concert.

If I don't go with hypers, I would use the mk5s.  Just looking into hypers for more options as I'll probably be further back and want to have a more focused pattern.  I will not be able to be on the stage or lip.  Most of these run doing setups on the main stage and on the floor in front of the stage (as a make shift stage).  Bands play on the floor when another band is setting up on main stage.  I will likely not be able to run cables/snake/etc... through the floor stage.  My guess is that I will be somewhere in row 5-15, but you never know - could be even further.

-Tom

[Tommy-boy]

If you are okay with runing a coincient pattern setup, you could use your existing MK5 and MK8 in a Mid/Side configuration.  The resulting virtual L/R microphone pattern will resemble crossed supercardioids.  You only need a way of rigging them one directly over the other.

I have done this in other recordings where I had more flexibility on mic position.  I have the Schoeps AMS22 mid-side mount as well as the Rycote Invision with the dual mic clips that let you clip a mic on top - both are easy to use for mid-side work.  I like the small visual footprint, but was hoping to pick up less room (side) info and focus in more on the band.  I'd also prefer to have some of the stereo info be determined by timing differences.  However - the slim mid side is certainly one way to go - easy to setup and I don't need to spend any $$$.

I was thinking of taking a pair of hypers/supers and starting out in NOS but widening the distance a little bit and reducing the angle a bit.  This should put more focus on the band, would pick up less room, and could narrow down the SRA to 60-70 degrees.  A pair of hypers spaced at 36cm with a 70 degree mic angle should have an SRA of 65 degrees.  Stereo information would be relatively balanced between timing and level differences, with slightly more info coming from timing.  Looks good on paper, but I'll admit I haven't recorded anything this way and would probably need to experiment a bit!

Considerably less so than most more moderately priced supercardioids if more than your other Schoeps capsules except the MK8.  It's one of the most respected and especially well behaved supercardioids manufactured.  Absent corrective equalization, any pressure gradient microphone will exibit some degree of low end roll-off at a distance, a figure-8 with the steepest roll-off, a hyper second steepest, and a supercardioid more so than a cardioid.  The MK41's exemplary polar behavior makes it far easier to compensate for that inherant roll-off using EQ than many other supercardioids.

Good point.  I was just a bit uncomfortable when I looked at the MK41 freq plot.  Looks like the roll off starts somewhere btw 150-200hz, which seems higher than other hyper/super card mics.  You point on the tightness of the polar pattern is well taken.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
-Tom

[bryonsos]

Add some Countryman B3s to your arsenal. Small/discreet, good results with a battery box or PIP, and you'll find reasons to use them when you don't have to be discreet. I taped Furthur with mine once for shits and giggles, and that tape got more love than some of the ones made with 100X more expensive mics.

[F.O.Bean]

I would argue that the mk41 is the best SDC supercardioids out there, along w a few other hypers/supers, and the mk41 is an industry standard in music recording. I think you'd be very happy with those if you gave them a try. Maybe some kind local Schoeps taper will loan you a pair? IMO mk41.788t would be gold

[acidjack]

In your stated price range I'd jump on those ATs in a heartbeat. Have run alongside them and edited a raw recording made with them and they are excellent mics at a great price point. With the many AKG active options available, the CK63>NBob Cable>tinybox route may be the smarter move for you, but honestly, I prefer the sound of the ATs.

I prefer the Schoeps MK41 to all of them. After that, the MBHO KA500N and those ATs would probably be my favorite hypers I have heard or used. I've run those CK63 blue lines; they're alright, but not as good as the ATs. For reference, I've personally used or gotten raw files of (off the top of my head):

Schoeps MK41
Microtech-Gefell M210
Neumann KM150
AKG CK93
AKG 414
AT 4053
MBHO KA500N
AT 853

You'll note that the main one I haven't played with are the AKG '63s. Not a slight on them, just never have had a chance.

[acidjack]

Something to think about when you look at published frequency response curves of highly directional microphones, especially where the distance to source is not stated:  if AKG and AT show flat response to 20Hz, but Schoeps shows a rolloff starting at 150Hz, then there are a few possibilities:

- the charts are all accurate at 1m, but Schoeps doesn't realize they are at a competitive disadvantage due to their rolloff;
- the charts are all accurate at 1m, Schoeps realizes they are at a competitive disadvantage, but they have no idea how to make a supercardioid capsule that doesn't exhibit a rolloff;
- the charts aren't all calibrated to 1m and are therefore not comparable.

I'll let you decide among those choices.

Brilliant post. Thanks, Jon.

FWIW, my completely anecdotal experience of this is the answer is #3. Much like everything from cheap iPod headphones to $1000 headphones claims "20-20,000Hz" frequency response.

[DSatz]

Jon, a couple of points regarding Schoeps:

- Schoeps' published frequency response curves for capsules and compact microphones are corrected for a 1-meter measuring distance.

- The frequency response and polar pattern of the Schoeps MK 41 capsule were consciously adjusted in the early 1970s in consultation with some of the company's leading customers (e.g. French radio). Different versions were tried, comparison recordings were made and discussed, and the result was a move toward a supercardioid pattern and away from hypercardioid, along with greater extension of the low-frequency response and a somewhat fuller sound overall.

This was spurred by:
- an increasing demand for the MK 41 to be more useful for full-range music recording;
- the advent of stereo television broadcasting in Western Europe (at this time, all broadcasting was public and the technology decisions were centralized in each country); and
- HUGE improvements in theater sound systems, which (especially after the success of "Star Wars" and "Close Encounters") increased the attention paid to sound quality in film and video generally. Many people who recorded dialog and effects no longer wanted to cut the low frequencies as much as they had previously.

- Schoeps offers an alternate version of the MK 41 called the MK 41 S, with a greater low-frequency rolloff. It's used for close speech pickup and for spot/solo miking where proximity effect makes up the difference. I think that this indicates which way the market demand is mainly pointing--and it's not in the direction of increased low-frequency response.

And some more general points:

- The more closely a microphone capsule approaches figure-8 (= pure pressure gradient response), the more sensitive it becomes to solid-borne sound, handling noise, wind and breath noise, etc.--so by about 40 Hz, an increasing proportion of any such capsule's output is due to that undesirable stuff, rather than acoustic input--and any increase in the capsule's low-frequency sensitivity, more often than not, will mainly cause the microphone to deliver more garbage. (Of course, sometimes that's subjectively desirable--decorrelated rumble can fool a lot of people into hearing "space.")

- Microphones with flat low-frequency response (plane-wave, not 1-meter) pick up a great deal of information about the room (venue) in which they're being used--and more often than not, the news isn't so good. As an irresponsible generalization (but one that I really believe), the VAST majority of indoor recordings are made in spaces that are smaller than optimal and that have undesirable low-frequency resonances. I might ideally like all my capsules to have flat frequency response down to 25 or 30 Hz, but then most of the time, I would need to tailor that response in post-production.

- I find Neumann's KM 150 supercardioid an interesting case in point. Its frequency response is ca. -10 dB at 50 Hz (Neumann also corrects to 1 meter), so it could legitimately be considered a capsule for close speech recording. I own a pair of these, and have used them occasionally to record full-range music. What surprises me is the extent to which the bass is still really "all there." It has a very different balance than what I would have gotten with the Schoeps MK 41, of course--but within a few seconds of listening to the recording, I find my ears accepting and adjusting to that balance.

That certainly wouldn't occur if the mikes were 10 dB down in the treble! So I conclude that when bass response is taken away smoothly, the effect seems to be tolerable (despite the reduction of visceral impact). -- Of course if you were recording amplified music where the PA system and the room combined to boost the bass unnaturally, that 10 dB rolloff might be just the ticket. Or maybe 5 dB of rolloff would sound just right. As Gutbucket says above, when a capsule has the same polar pattern all across the audio range, you can equalize a recording that was made with that type of capsule, and the results will be predictable and well-behaved. Both Schoeps and Neumann have accomplished that.

However, In many years of recording orchestras and percussion ensembles and solo pianos and other things that have plenty of low-frequency content, I don't recall ever boosting the bass of a recording that I'd made with a pair of MK 41s. I'm not EQ-averse, and have boosted the bass of numerous MK 8 recordings, for example. Maybe it's just that I use the MK 41 when I know that its particular frequency response AND polar response will give me suitable results, and I use something else when I want a different result. I've probably made 1,000+ stereo music recordings with the MK 41 over the years, and I'd better have learned something about them during that time!

--best regards

[Tom McCreadie]

Howeer, In many years of recording orchestras and percussion ensembles and solo pianos and other things that have plenty of low-frequency content, I don't recall ever boosting the bass of a recording that I'd made with a pair of MK 41s. I'm not EQ-averse, and have boosted the bass of numerous MK 8 recordings, for example. Maybe it's just that I use the MK 41 when I know that its particular frequency response AND polar response will give me suitable results, and I use something else when I want a different result. I've probably made 1,000+ stereo music recordings with the MK 41 over the years, and I'd better have learned something about them during that time!

Even after years of classical recording using MK8 fig8's in MS or Blumlein arrays, I still find myself indecisive and vacillating on whether to apply some low-end equalization boost to the MK8's, to give them a bit more 'body' and less wimpiness. The most plausible first approach was to just apply a straight inverse of the published Schoeps frequency curve...but this was attended by an exacerbation of any stand- and air-borne grunge that the MK8 is suceptible to (all this even with demure, indoors audiences  :-)). So I then resorted to cleaning up the extreme bottom with a 2nd step, an 18dB/octave scientific filter from 70Hz - which was probably introducing a resonance bump. At present I'm still doing a watered down amount of bottom-end MK8 tweaking (and - shock, horror - even, in tiny amounts to my MK4 cardioids!). But I suspect I'm now operating in placebo Domingo territory. Guess it's time to start using my ears in earnest again.  :-)

[Ultfris101]

Jon, a couple of points regarding Schoeps:

- Schoeps' published frequency response curves for capsules and compact microphones are corrected for a 1-meter measuring distance.

- The frequency response and polar pattern of the Schoeps MK 41 capsule were consciously adjusted in the early 1970s in consultation with some of the company's leading customers (e.g. French radio). Different versions were tried, comparison recordings were made and discussed, and the result was a move toward a supercardioid pattern and away from hypercardioid, along with greater extension of the low-frequency response and a somewhat fuller sound overall.

This was spurred by:
- an increasing demand for the MK 41 to be more useful for full-range music recording;
- the advent of stereo television broadcasting in Western Europe (at this time, all broadcasting was public and the technology decisions were centralized in each country); and
- HUGE improvements in theater sound systems, which (especially after the success of "Star Wars" and "Close Encounters") increased the attention paid to sound quality in film and video generally. Many people who recorded dialog and effects no longer wanted to cut the low frequencies as much as they had previously.

- Schoeps offers an alternate version of the MK 41 called the MK 41 S, with a greater low-frequency rolloff. It's used for close speech pickup and for spot/solo miking where proximity effect makes up the difference. I think that this indicates which way the market demand is mainly pointing--and it's not in the direction of increased low-frequency response.

Small tangent, Dsatz, did you write? Or say you were writing a book on Schoeps history? Combining strong technical background with real world usage and putting it in context with cultural phenomena like Star Wars and Close Encounters seems like it would be an unusually rich reading on a topic that easily becomes dull and lifeless.

Threads like this are what make TS such an amazing place. Thanks to all the contributors who I know are just discussing things they are interested in. It's like getting panelists together at a conference to wax poetic on whatever ideas they find interesting without calling each other names