Topic: MK4's or MK4V?

[Napo]

I have my CMR set up and I'd like to buy a second set of capsules, this time cardioids (I have the MK-21).

Which one would you choose MK4's or MK4V's?

Of the latter I like the fact that they can be used in a close configuartion (I will use it in semi-stealthing situation) as they will not interfere among themselves.
Yet, I am concerned that I can lose the bottom end (which I love so much from my MK-21).
On the other side, though, the MK4V's are said to be brighter whichin principle could be an advantage given the general 'dark sound' of Schopes mics.

Any experience/suggestion to share?

Best,
Mauro

[H₂O]

I've owned both and personally prefer the mk4s and not the mk4vs.  I got more consistent results with the 4's.

I would think it would be easier to run the 4v's in a semi stealth environ though.

[OOK]

What about the MK5.  Why the MK5?  Well.  The card is between the mk4 and the mk4v in terms of the high frequency bump and you also get an omni as a bonus......three patterns are certainly better than 2...

[ero3030]

this has been beatin to death.  should easily find something in the " search "   ed

[Tim]

mk41's

I've never really loved the sound of Schoeps cards, too often smeared and muddy in the mids and low end

[Napo]

thanks for the replies, which came so fast!

sorry ed, I will go thru the search

[Matt Quinn]

mk41's

I love all Schoeps caps, but I think Tim is right here. You will IMO get a lot of mileage out of having a pair of subs & hypers as opposed to subs & cards.

[Napo]

here some more debate from the archive

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=135525.0

[Tim]

mk41's

I love all Schoeps caps, but I think Tim is right here. You will IMO get a lot of mileage out of having a pair of subs & hypers as opposed to subs & cards.

great point, I should have said that in my first post. having subs and hypers will be a pretty versatile arsenal.

btw - love those mk21's

[su6oxone]

As I recall, Napo mostly tapes jazz in clubs with quiet audiences, so I'm not sure if hypers would be the best choice for set #2 of caps.  I like the MK5 suggestion since then you'll have cards and omnis.  Personally, I wouldn't get the 4Vs due to the prominent HF bump. 

MK41 - if taping in more challenging situations (e.g. noisy crowd, poor acoustics, boomy, etc.).
MK4 - all around good choice.
MK5 - could be nice if you can tape close to the stage in a relatively quiet room.

You could also consider the vertical/side address MK41V, which may have a very mild HF bump too, but less than the MK4V (as reported by DSatz, but also obvious when looking at the frequency response graphs on the Schoeps website).

[taylorc]

My recommendation would be to go to arhcive.org and download several recordings with each mic (with the same or at least very similar signal paths).  Spend a week or so listening.

[Napo]

su6oxone, you recall very well  I record jazz in controlled environments.

taylorc, great advice and very sensible.

Now through reading I was almost convinced to go for MK4V's (high end on jazz and ambient music is important) but then....
I read that Bernard from Shoeps said that the farther from the stage you are the brittler/thinner the sound becomes.

Back from where I started

[Brian Skalinder]

Especially for jazz in a controlled environment, I'd go for MK5s to gain the addition of the omnis.  Love the sound of omnis in good sounding spaces or locations.

[sparkey]

I will join the chorus of voices in support of hypers

mk41's

I love all Schoeps caps, but I think Tim is right here. You will IMO get a lot of mileage out of having a pair of subs & hypers as opposed to subs & cards.

great point, I should have said that in my first post. having subs and hypers will be a pretty versatile arsenal.

btw - love those mk21's

[DSatz]

Napo, Schoeps microphones aren't dark-sounding (with one possible exception: the MK 2 omni if it is misused in reverberant sound field conditions, instead of the close-up placement that it's designed for). Otherwise, most Schoeps capsules are very close to neutral in their high-frequency response--much more so than most competing brands--and very low in distortion.

So many condenser microphones are designed to sound artificially bright, and/or to have audible levels of distortion, that many people assume both qualities to be inherent in condenser microphones. Their ears have become so accustomed to hyped-up sound that to them, a microphone with low distortion and essentially flat response sounds "dark" to them by comparison.

But no form of deviation from flat response and low distortion can always sound good on all material. Microphones with built-in sonic coloration inevitably complement some recordings and harm others. A microphone with very low coloration, on the other hand, is adaptable to a wider range of situations, and the results are more predictable. So this is a matter of attitude as well as technology.

I'm a classical engineer and your mileage may vary considerably from mine, but the above expresses a lot of what I like about Schoeps mikes: They tend to "remove themselves from the equation" about as much as a microphone can.

--best regards

[su6oxone]

But so many condenser microphones are designed to be artificially bright sounding, and/or have relatively high levels of distortion, that many people have come to assume that both qualities are an inherent feature of condenser microphones. Their ears have become so accustomed to hyped-up sound that to them, a microphone with low distortion and essentially flat response sounds "dark" to them by comparison.

I think the correct term here is 'muddy', as most Schoeps detractors like to say. 

Thanks to DSatz for an always informative (and authoritative) post. 

[Napo]

Dsatz,

my definition of 'darksound' was a bit of a copycat from reading other posts in the TS community. 

Reality is that I have only limited direct experience in earing different mic's in my jazz environment. I have just two extremes:
- CA11's (which of course have coloration) but respond to my need when stealthing in extreme situations
- MK21's>CMR  which are just perfectly neutral and great in reproducing the full scale of frequencies (I love them).

The problem with the MK21's is that when far away from stage and with electric bass and powerful drums they tend to sound distant and a bit boomy to my ears. That could also be the issue with my remaining parts of my rig (TB>M-10) + the room (as the auditorium in Rome by the Architect Renzo Piano, was meant for classical music).

Thank you

[tim in jersey]

Dsatz,

my definition of 'darksound' was a bit of a copycat from reading other posts in the TS community. 

Reality is that I have only limited direct experience in earing different mic's in my jazz environment. I have just two extremes:
- CA11's (which of course have coloration) but respond to my need when stealthing in extreme situations
- MK21's>CMR  which are just perfectly neutral and great in reproducing the full scale of frequencies (I love them).

The problem with the MK21's is that when far away from stage and with electric bass and powerful drums they tend to sound distant and a bit boomy to my ears. That could also be the issue with my remaining parts of my rig (TB>M-10) + the room (as the auditorium in Rome by the Architect Renzo Piano, was meant for classical music).

Thank you

Nothing to add other than the fact that I'd love to join you in Rome with my rig and record some jazz and do a comparison. 

[DSatz]

Napo, thanks for your reply and for not taking my remarks amiss. In general, omnis or wide cardioids aren't normally the best choice for stereo recording when you're stuck out in the reverberant (diffuse) sound field; I'd suggest a good pair of supercardioids, either coincident or closely spaced.

I mostly use and recommend Schoeps microphones, and I went through a long period of time in which I used the Schoeps supercardioids for most of my recordings. But if you're often stuck recording from farther back than you prefer and particularly if avoiding boominess is your principal concern, I could very well understand if someone were to prefer a microphone such as the Neumann KM 150 (or KM 185 for the lower-cost, non-modular version). It has a considerable low-frequency rolloff built into the capsule design--nearly to the point where it would qualify as a close-speech microphone. I imagine that it was designed to "split the difference" between the demands of dialog recording and of music recording, rather favoring the dialog recording between those two applications. But the rolloff is nicely chosen, and while the microphone definitely shifts the emphasis in music recording toward the midrange and upper midrange, it is not without a low end ("rolloff" does not mean "cutoff"). So you might want to try a pair of those some time, perhaps.

--best regards

[Napo]

Dsats,

T+ again for your suggestion. Following what you are saying I may decide to try the MK41 after all to have a 'large pattern' option as mentioned by Taylorc and others.
I want to stay with Schoeps for a while, also to maximize my investment in the CMR's. The Newmann will remain in my radar as well.

It goes without saying that all of you TS fellows are invited to have a drink in Rome (wine is on me) and go together to tape live music (get your stealth rigs out  ). Jim in Jersey, you are the first on the list 

Best,
Mauro

[stevetoney]

I'll throw down an opinion on the association of 'muddy' with Schoeps gear. 

So many people covet the Grace preamps and they get such great press here on TS.com.  I don't disagree that the V2 and V3 are great products in combo with the vast majority of mics, but when evaluating the end result, you have to consider how the mic and preamp work together. 

With that in mind, I hear alot of loose low-end when I listen to live recordings made with the Grace - Schoeps combo.  Although the combo has enough warmth for my tastes, it's just that the bottom end usually sounds loose to me...bass guitar notes tend to lack definition that I personally require on my recordings.  Nevertheless, since there are so many recordings out there with Schoeps through a V2 or V3, I think that leads alot of people to a broader general conclusion that Schoeps = muddy low-end.

So, IMNSHO Schoeps have a crystal clean bottom through most preamps, but not so much through Grace.

[yug du nord]

41+21 would be sweet!!!  Best of both worlds IMO.
The 4's might be too redundant since you already have 21's.  5's would be excellent, but a bit more expensive.
21's up close.
41's further back. 
or
41's up closed used as "spot" mics.
Golden.

[Napo]

T+ uncleyung.

In my golden dreams besides MK21/41's there is a pair of LD Milab mics with the switch omni/card.

But this is another story, or better just a dream for the moment 

[StuStu]

I recommend the MK41 capsules as well. Most supercardioids sound unnatural to my ears. The MK41 is an exception. I love mine.

[aaronji]

...the room (as the auditorium in Rome by the Architect Renzo Piano, was meant for classical music)...

Is that the main room (the Saint Cecilia, maybe)?  I am assuming that you are describing the Parco della Musica?  I saw Robert Fripp there about five years ago.  Really an amazing venue...Beautiful.  Nice acoustics, too.  But huge.  Maybe those hypers are a pretty good idea if you can't get up close! 

[Napo]

...the room (as the auditorium in Rome by the Architect Renzo Piano, was meant for classical music)...

Is that the main room (the Saint Cecilia, maybe)?  I am assuming that you are describing the Parco della Musica?  I saw Robert Fripp there about five years ago.  Really an amazing venue...Beautiful.  Nice acoustics, too.  But huge.  Maybe those hypers are a pretty good idea if you can't get up close!

Yes, it is Parco della Musica but the medium room called Sala Sinopoli. There is a third one the samllest, called Sala Petrassi. Acoustic is great fro acustic orchestra and 'smooth' jazz. If you get an electric bass and powerful drums, it tends to sound boomy.

[Napo]

here the English link to the Parco della Musica in Rome.
http://www.auditorium.com/en/auditorium/spazi-sale/index

On the left side of the screen the detailes of each room.

A real beauty!

[F.O.Bean]

mk41

[Scooter123]

Having tried both, and being a Schoeps kinda guy, I like the MK4s.  The 4v's are a bit too bright for my taste.  To the extent that the recording is too "warm" (the negative is muddy), I simply do a 60-80 or 90 highpass.  Most of the time, for the venues I go to (smaller venues) and where I sit (good seats, up front) I get little echo and rarely too much bass, so that is not necessary.  If you do arena stuff with middle to poor seats, the mkvs might be better suited for you. 

My suggestion is to go on The Dime, and do some comparitive listening.  You can also PM anyone with either 4vs or mk4s in their signature block and have them upload some recordings for you to A-B. 

[it-goes-to-eleven]

With that in mind, I hear alot of loose low-end when I listen to live recordings made with the Grace - Schoeps combo.  Although the combo has enough warmth for my tastes, it's just that the bottom end usually sounds loose to me...bass guitar notes tend to lack definition that I personally require on my recordings.

Interesting.. I've never felt that way with my use of the v3 and Schoeps or MGs.  As I've said, I feel that the v3 actually rolls off the bass a bit.   The v3 and the DAV BG1 are the cleanest, most detailed pre-amps I own for acoustic recording.  So, what is a better portable pre-amp for purely acoustic material?

Back to cap selection..  So much depends on what you record, and what you like.

I think PA systems are often muddy, and some people choose bright mics that correct for that.  I think playback systems are also a factor - muddy playback with sloppy bass will favor brighter mics.

I've told the story before - I initially went with mk21's and mk41's.  Then I added mk4's.  And then I sold my mk41's. I find there are many situations where the mk4's sound so much better than mk41's, but which aren't ideal for mk21's. If the room sound is compromised enough to require mk41's, then I need to move closer, and usually can.  I like my mg210's more than the mk41's, but I seldom run those.  I like my mg200's more than the mk4's, though the mg200's don't have quite as much low frequency response.

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=63748.0

While there are situations where the mk41 and mk4 can sound very similar, I strongly reject the idea that the mk41 is comparable to the mk4 in recording quality, and is somehow a substitute.   I find the more directional the pattern, the less natural the result sounds.

The mk4v's are very nice - the high freq bump can help capture detail.  Zman has dozens and dozens of mk4v recordings in circulation.

mk41's are very useful if you record very quiet sources at very high gain (50+dB), but can't get close. They help reduce the incidental noise that becomes a problem at high gain.

When the conditions are optimal for the mk21, I find they produce stunning results that cannot be equaled with any card or hyper.

[Napo]

When the conditions are optimal for the mk21, I find they produce stunning results that cannot be equaled with any card or hyper.

Couldn't agree more with your statement.

On the caps the idea of going for MK41 is enticing me for having a different sound, all together, a dry one as stated by Schoeps sound. My idea is first going to the extremes and then converge to the centre, as you did. Not yet decided, though ....   

[sparkey]

When the conditions are optimal for the mk21, I find they produce stunning results that cannot be equaled with any card or hyper.

Couldn't agree more with your statement.

On the caps the idea of going for MK41 is enticing me for having a different sound, all together, a dry one as stated by Schoeps sound. My idea is first going to the extremes and then converge to the centre, as you did. Not yet decided, though ....

I don't know if it is so different...I wanted those caps for years and they sorta fell into my lap...but they are the most forgiving microphones I've ever used - up front, in back, not-so-sweet spot - always pulling stellar tapes.