Topic: Supercard or Hypercard Mics - Need Suggestions

[DSatz]

(although this is off-topic for a thread on super/hypercardioid mikes) Tom McC., yes, what you described is why Schoeps doesn't recommend overdoing the low-end boost to correct for the rolloff of the MK 8. They have a stereo sphere microphone called the KFM 360 which incorporates digital signal processing, and they used a gentler boost for that rather than 6 dB, because they found the full correction sounded boomy in addition to exacerbating solid-borne noise, as you mentioned.

And definitely "what Jon S. said" about shelving curves. Don't boost at frequencies any lower than you need to, or you're asking for real trouble. In fact I strongly recommend a rolloff below the chosen limit of your boost (30/40/50 Hz?), not just a shelf.

--best regards

[tim in jersey]

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   

^What he said.

I'm just a dumb ts.com member that randomly points mics at music and hopes for the best most of the time...

[Tom McCreadie]

(although this is off-topic for a thread on super/hypercardioid mikes) Tom McC., yes, what you described is why Schoeps doesn't recommend overdoing the low-end boost to correct for the rolloff of the MK 8. They have a stereo sphere microphone called the KFM 360 which incorporates digital signal processing, and they used a gentler boost for that rather than 6 dB, because they found the full correction sounded boomy in addition to exacerbating solid-borne noise, as you mentioned.

And definitely "what Jon S. said" about shelving curves. Don't boost at frequencies any lower than you need to, or you're asking for real trouble. In fact I strongly recommend a rolloff below the chosen limit of your boost (30/40/50 Hz?), not just a shelf.

Thanks, again, for the additional insights. I had indeed been incorporating a rolloff all along.
When I do succumb to the MK8 equalization temptation - though never needed with a cappella choirs etc. -  I usually now adopt a conservative(?) setting, after much parametric fiddling, that amounts to a gentle boost of 0dB -> +3dB from 250Hz -> 50Hz, followed by a sharp rolloff below 50Hz. Ach, the jury is still out on the overall benefits  :-).

Yes, this is all slipping OT....but it does reinforce your warnings that the risk of unwanted whumpin & thunkin sounds increases with the directionality of the mics.

[John Willett]

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.

This is the super-cardioid capsule of the SMS 2000 series - the complete mic. is the M210.

The Gefell M310 is also worth looking at - this is the fixed capsule hyper-cardioid of the M300 series and is slightly cheaper than the M210.

[Tommy-boy]

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.

My initial thought was that perhaps the frequency response may have been intentionally designed by Schoeps to have some low end roll off to make the mic more suitable for broadcast situations.  If I had a mic attached to the end of a boom recording dialog, I'd rather have the rolloff than an extended base response which would pick up unwanted stuff below the frequencies where human voices live (rumbling, handling, etc...).  This doesn't necessarily fit into the 3 scenarios you've laid out.

Tom

[rockymtnryan]

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.

If you still want to consider Busmans for this purpose, I would contact Chris Johnson @ Busman. I'm sure he could provide you with a freq plot on the k31 hypers, or any of the caps he offers. And I believe that the standard finish on his BSC2 active setup is grey these days; you have to request the yellow ones (like I did).

[John Willett]

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.

My initial thought was that perhaps the frequency response may have been intentionally designed by Schoeps to have some low end roll off to make the mic more suitable for broadcast situations.

If a mic. is designed to be mainly used as a spot mic., close to the instrument, then proximity effect would come into effect and it then makes sense to have some bass roll-off to compensate.

Also - directional mics do tend to roll off a lot earlier than omnis - and the more directional it is, the more it tends to roll off.

[Tommy-boy]

Jon and John,

Great points.

If this were one of the jazz concerts where I am engaged to produce an archival recording, I wouldn't even be debating mics.  I'd put up the MK5s in ORTF, grab splits from the solo mics (typically 58s) and get a decent result.

Recording from the audience is a bit new for me, and sadly, I know next to nothing about hyper/super card mics.  The point being made that different manufacturers might not do their frequency plots the same and that this might impact comparability is well taken.

I love Schoeps, am already invested in the product line, and would like to stick with Schoeps.  I'm just hoping to avoid learning a lesson the hard way.  The last thing I want to do is drop $2K on a pair of MK41s and find out that they aren't a great choice for what I'm looking to do.  I appreciate the feedback so far.

Tom

[Cobiwan]

If you do buy MK41s and aren't happy with them you could always sell them to me, with a small handling and restocking fee!

[F.O.Bean]

If you do buy MK41s and aren't happy with them you could always sell them to me, with a small handling and restocking fee!

Yeah, you could easily resell them, but you'd take a small hit financially since you could probably get around $1,500/used for the mk41 pair. You'd pay $2k new tho I honestly think you'll frickin LOVE the mk41s. IMO, the mk4s and mk41s are THE BEST caps out there. Period. If you love the other Schoeps capsules you own, I see NO reason you wouldn't love the mk41s as well. Just keep an eye out for used mk41s and you can resell them for what you paid for them

[John Willett]

I love Schoeps, am already invested in the product line, and would like to stick with Schoeps.  I'm just hoping to avoid learning a lesson the hard way.

Yes - but almost all studios have a mix of manufacturers, so they have a mic. to cover most situations.

My top 5 (alphabetically) are: DPA, Microtech Gefell, Neumann, Schoeps & Sennheiser - all these are pretty equal, but come to their designs from different directions and I would be happy with any of these in my kit (I have three of these at the moment).