Topic: Schoeps Mk41 vs. Schoeps M-S "hypercardioid"

[thunderbolt]

I'm wondering if anyone has ever simultaneously recorded with a Mk41 pair and with a mid-side pair (i.e., Mk 4 and Mk eight and compared the results.  As I understand it, mid-side should approximate crossed hypercardioids when a cardioid is the mid and the mix is 50/50.  Assuming the angles between mics were adjusted to encompass an equivalent SRA, would they sound similar?

[acidjack]

Paging hi and lo.  I ran M-S MK5+MK8 and he ran MK41 side by side the other night at the same venue.  You can also compare my M-S Schoeps to MBHO Hypers right under them:
Schoeps M-S: http://archive.org/details/gpn2013-02-23.capitol_acidjack_schoeps
MBHO: http://archive.org/details/gpn2013-02-23.capitol_acidjack_MBHO

Keep in mind that the whole point of M-S is that it allows you to vary the width of your recording, so it wouldn't necessarily sound hyper-like unless you wanted it to. The more S you mix in, the more omnidirectional the recording becomes. 

Beyond that, while I know in *theory* they would sound similar, I think that especially if you are indoors and at some distance, having what are essentially two hypers pointed outwards at 180 degrees and a center cardiod pointed forward will not sound the same as two hypers at a given angle. 

[hi and lo]

Yep. I'll try to get that MK41 recording posted soon. They weren't on the same stand, but same height and maybe 2ft apart.

I agree with AJ about the flexibility of M/S and that it won't necessarily sound like a pair of hypers. It's only going to sound like hypers if the ratio of S to M is low and, making some theoretical assumptions, you could make it sound like a pair of cardioids, sub-cardiods, or omnis by varying the ratio.

[myke2241]

personally i like the MS recording more. the hypers phantom center is just mud... although the sides sound very good. Vox in your MS just pops out.

[acidjack]

personally i like the MS recording more. the hypers phantom center is just mud... although the sides sound very good. Vox in your MS just pops out.

I agree. I thought M-S worked well here.  It is especially useful in this venue because you have to be behind the board.  So, the people right in front of you are not talking, but (IME) the people off to the sides outside of our little section are all talking extremely loudly (it's a very chatty venue).  For both that and the more upfront vocals, I thought M-S was key.

[hi and lo]

personally i like the MS recording more. the hypers phantom center is just mud... although the sides sound very good. Vox in your MS just pops out.

I agree. I thought M-S worked well here.  It is especially useful in this venue because you have to be behind the board.  So, the people right in front of you are not talking, but (IME) the people off to the sides outside of our little section are all talking extremely loudly (it's a very chatty venue).  For both that and the more upfront vocals, I thought M-S was key.

That was my preference as well. The hypers just don't have the same 'pop' that the M/S recording has, however I think a three channel setup (hypers + center cardioid?) could be even better.

[myke2241]

MS can be decoded into three channels. So if you want something more directional i would just swap out the " M " channel with a hyper or super. Although this would create more dramatic movement in the image and give you some proximity effect.

[Todd R]

I'm wondering if anyone has ever simultaneously recorded with a Mk41 pair and with a mid-side pair (i.e., Mk 4 and Mk eight and compared the results.  As I understand it, mid-side should approximate crossed hypercardioids when a cardioid is the mid and the mix is 50/50.  Assuming the angles between mics were adjusted to encompass an equivalent SRA, would they sound similar?

A 50:50 mix of a mid cardioid with the side fig8 would (with ideal card/fig8 mics) yields a crossed hypercard pattern, but with an included angle of 120 degrees.  The relative mix creates both the pattern and the angle, and of course MS is a coincident mic pattern.  To get an angle of 90 degrees, yields something like a subcard pattern.

As to whether they would theoretically sound similar, the biggest difference is probably that a 50:50 mix gives you a hypercard pattern, but the mk41 is actually a supercard pattern, not a hypercard pattern.  Then of course most tapers are probably using a near-coincident pattern with the mk41's (like DIN), so the MS decoded mic would not have capsule separation, and typically tapers tend to use a 90 degree angle or less, not the effective 120 degree of the decoded MS.

Nothing against MS at all, and I wish I've had experience with it.  But since the mic pattern is tied to the effective angle as you decode MS, it isn't likely to yield the same effective results as an actual pair of mics (since the taper isn't as likely to choose that pattern and angle combo).  Whether the MS pair or the actual mk41 pair sounds better depends on tastes and the actual application of course.

[F.O.Bean]

Well said Todd!!!

[Brian Skalinder]

In addition to the issues Todd R noted, the M-S would also pick up its mid component from the on-axis Mid mic, whereas an XY hypercardioid pair at 120º would pick up its mid component off-axis to one degree or another (based on the width of the sound stage relative to the XY array).  Depending on the quality of the hypercardioid mics and their off axis response at various frequencies (and a variety of playback variables), this may or may not produce an audible difference.

[MIQ]

Mid=card
M/S Mix=50/50
SRA=80 deg

Miq

[MIQ]

Coincident pair of Hypers
Angle=120 deg
SRA= 76 deg

Similar SRA but as Brian noted you are relying on the off axis response to capture the center info when using the coincident hypers.

Miq

[MIQ]

Coincident Supercards
Mic Angle = 120 deg
SRA = 100 deg

Considerably different SRA.

Miq

[Tom McCreadie]

A 50:50 mix of a mid cardioid with the side fig8 would (with ideal card/fig8 mics) yields a crossed hypercard pattern, but with an included angle of 120 degrees.  The relative mix creates both the pattern and the angle, and of course MS is a coincident mic pattern.  To get an angle of 90 degrees, yields something like a subcard pattern.

If you do the maths, a 1:1 M/S mix of an ideal cardioid and Fig-8 actually translates to a virtual XY pair of included angle 126.9 deg.
And this virtual mic has a "V=a + b.cos(theta)"  polar pattern of V = 0.309 + 0.691.cos(theta).

So It's quite reasonable to label such an outcome as "supercardioid". Various literature sources - Woram, Witteck (Schoeps), Jecklin, Sengpiel, Eargle, Dooley & Streicher etc - list a supecardioid as having "a" ranging from 0.33 to 0.37, with "b" from 0.67 to 0.63. A hypercardioid is generally put in the ballpark of  "ä" = 0.25 and "b" = 0.75. The MK41 is supercardioid.

All academic of course, for we never have perfect mics. [and my nitpicking about names reminds me of those German technical hobby mags - Hi-Fi, photo etc.-  where a stressed reader would send in a letter with: "Please help. I can't sleep!  Please clarify: is Model ABC in the Ubermittelklasse or the Unterspitzenklase?"  :-) ]

But one can _never_ generate a subcardioid pattern in the virtual X(Y) mic, starting out with a cardioid for M. The pattern of the virtual mic is always an intermediate of the two 'parent' patterns and can never be fatter than that of the starting M mic, no matter how much extra M gain applied. One needs to start out with something fatter for M than a subcardioid  - e.g omni. In such a scenario, to achieve a subcardioid pattern of, say, V = 0.70 + 0.30.cos(theta), an M:S ratio of 2.33 is needed (i.e. omni M level is  7.36dB higher than the Fig-8 S). The included angle of this XY virtual pair is - no surprises here - 180 deg. i.e back to back subcardioids.

Some folks describe MS as being "more flexible" than XY. Not quite true, for the width can always be readjusted by the additional matrix step:
XY -> MS -> M'S' -> X'Y'. I guess you could say that XY is not less-flexible, merely longer-winded...like this post.   :-)

[MIQ]

Various literature sources - Woram, Witteck (Schoeps), Jecklin, Sengpiel, Eargle, Dooley & Streicher etc - list a supecardioid as having "a" ranging from 0.33 to 0.37, with "b" from 0.67 to 0.63. A hypercardioid is generally put in the ballpark of  "ä" = 0.25 and "b" = 0.75. The MK41 is supercardioid.

This. It is a little confusing subtlety and as you noted mostly academic. It's something you rarely see mentioned with respect to determining (calculating) the SRA.  The visualizers above both include two Supercard settings.  One for a= Cm=0.37 and one for Cm= 0.34.  These values seem to correspond reasonably well to the popular Supercard polar responses available from mic manufacturers.

Miq