Topic: Something similar to Schoeps MK4V without having to go to the darkside?

[DSatz]

I wouldn't consider the Neumann KM 184/KM 140 to be a very close approximation to a Schoeps with the MK 4 V capsule; the treble bump in the Neumann mikes is narrower, and they also have a slight upper-midrange elevation not shown in the spec-sheet curves (it falls within their 2 dB tolerance limit above the flat response line that they publish), while the Schoeps mikes are flatter in that region.

[noahbickart]

why not just apply an eq curve that matches the mk4v to the ck61 capsule you already own?

[carlbeck]

Noah, it's a very valid point. In the past I have been opposed to any eq for the purity of blah blah blah but I am starting to see the benefit. It's painstakingly slow with Audacity though & it might benefit me to learn & adapt in the long run anyway. I've always enjoyed the MK 4V recordings I've heard & fortunately I'm not lusting over making the change. I've also started to enjoy the MKH 8040/50 recordings I've been listening too but who knows what kind of eq has been applied in post, although they still tend to bass monsters, not too heavy but definitely more pronounced than other microphones. What it's taught me though is while I think I can enjoy the sonic signature of a given mic I may not be hearing it in its absolute raw form so who knows. Although I can say regarding the MKH series the engineering seems to appeal to me & I really like the concept of what they claim with the supercard.

I can say that I'm struggling with my AKG recordings, it's a new rig & hasn't given me the results I'd hoped for, maybe my personal tastes have changed, maybe there's something slightly off in my signal chain, maybe it's a symmetry issue or just the rooms I've taped in. Unfortunately not at all confidence inspiring & many variables to take into consideration. In the past I knew what I was coming home with when I taped a show, it was pleasing to my ears & consistently made great recordings that I enjoyed. Now not so much which is why I've even considered selling everything & starting over from scratch, quite a drastic approach which may not be at all necessary. I've been enjoying this discussion & I'm learning which at the end of the day is what we're here for.

[acidjack]

Noah, it's a very valid point. In the past I have been opposed to any eq for the purity of blah blah blah but I am starting to see the benefit. It's painstakingly slow with Audacity though & it might benefit me to learn & adapt in the long run anyway. I've always enjoyed the MK 4V recordings I've heard & fortunately I'm not lusting over making the change. I've also started to enjoy the MKH 8040/50 recordings I've been listening too but who knows what kind of eq has been applied in post, although they still tend to bass monsters, not too heavy but definitely more pronounced than other microphones. What it's taught me though is while I think I can enjoy the sonic signature of a given mic I may not be hearing it in its absolute raw form so who knows. Although I can say regarding the MKH series the engineering seems to appeal to me & I really like the concept of what they claim with the supercard.

I can say that I'm struggling with my AKG recordings, it's a new rig & hasn't given me the results I'd hoped for, maybe my personal tastes have changed, maybe there's something slightly off in my signal chain, maybe it's a symmetry issue or just the rooms I've taped in. Unfortunately not at all confidence inspiring & many variables to take into consideration. In the past I knew what I was coming home with when I taped a show, it was pleasing to my ears & consistently made great recordings that I enjoyed. Now not so much which is why I've even considered selling everything & starting over from scratch, quite a drastic approach which may not be at all necessary. I've been enjoying this discussion & I'm learning which at the end of the day is what we're here for.

If you aren't bothering to EQ your recordings, you certainly shouldn't be spending money on Schoeps, or any other professional grade equipment for that matter. Every recording you have ever heard that was made by a professional is EQ'd, not to mention the sound from the PA systems you're recording that some here claim is somehow "pure" when it emerges from said PA system. The whole "don't EQ because of purity" thing is, at best, nonsense from the pre-digital era when some really bad EQ jobs were more common. Nowadays there is no excuse not to.

I'd first suggest buying a decent software platform that allows real-time monitoring of EQ. I use Audacity for tracking, but it's definitely subpar for EQ. I use the Izotope Ozone 5 VST running in Adobe Audition, and it allows you to listen in real time to what your EQing is doing. Izotope Ozone I'd recommend to anyone; as to the platform to run it on, anything that allows real-time VST (Audacity doesn't; it's one of its few weaknesses) should do it. Lots of folks seem to like Soundforge and Wavelab; I've never used either. The $500 or whatever that you spend on those options is a lot, lot less coin than what you'd spend restarting on your rig or buying Schoeps.

I don't think the problem you're having is that your AKGs are insufficiently good mics; the problem is that your AKGs are making more accurate recordings and you aren't maximizing their quality with EQ. What you are liking about MK4Vs is probably the HF bump that makes vocals more clear. While no EQ can make some other mic sound "like Schoeps", it can certainly make your recordings more pleasing to the ear and, ultimately, better than what you were getting before.

[DSatz]

I agree with acidjack's attitude about EQ and supposed "purity"--I could say even more along those lines, but I won't (for now at least).

However, there are also limits to what you can do with EQ. You can set the 0-degree (on-axis) response of any microphone equal to the 0-degree response of any other microphone, but different microphones have different relationships between their on-axis and off-axis response, and EQ can't bridge those differences. When recordings are made at any real distance in a space that has normal reverberance, a large percentage of the sound energy arrives off-axis--so this is a big part of what makes one microphone sound (and behave) differently from another microphone that has the same nominal pattern (e.g. cardioid).

That's no argument against doing what can be done with EQ, however, as far as it goes.

--best regards

[voltronic]

If you aren't bothering to EQ your recordings, you certainly shouldn't be spending money on Schoeps, or any other professional grade equipment for that matter. Every recording you have ever heard that was made by a professional is EQ'd, not to mention the sound from the PA systems you're recording that some here claim is somehow "pure" when it emerges from said PA system. The whole "don't EQ because of purity" thing is, at best, nonsense from the pre-digital era when some really bad EQ jobs were more common. Nowadays there is no excuse not to.

I'd first suggest buying a decent software platform that allows real-time monitoring of EQ. I use Audacity for tracking, but it's definitely subpar for EQ. I use the Izotope Ozone 5 VST running in Adobe Audition, and it allows you to listen in real time to what your EQing is doing. Izotope Ozone I'd recommend to anyone; as to the platform to run it on, anything that allows real-time VST (Audacity doesn't; it's one of its few weaknesses) should do it. Lots of folks seem to like Soundforge and Wavelab; I've never used either. The $500 or whatever that you spend on those options is a lot, lot less coin than what you'd spend restarting on your rig or buying Schoeps.

Agreed - don't be afraid to EQ!  I only record acoustic classical / jazz, and care very much about capturing the "purity" of the performance.  But you need to ask yourself - are you going for the "purity" of what your recording chain captured, or what you heard with your own ears?  And if those two things are not exactly the same, are you willing to make adjustments to make them more so?  Careful use of EQ has helped me in this regard a number of times.

I also use Ozone and LOVE it, especially the EQ section.  After using it, I can't understand why anyone buys expensive outboard analog EQs anymore that are so extremely limited and colored by comparison.

As for a program to host VSTs (and an outstanding DAW in general), I will recommend Reaper every opportunity I get.

[bombdiggity]

There's a whole lot of useful discussion in this thread. 

why not just apply an eq curve that matches the mk4v to the ck61 capsule you already own?

That may go some way toward the "similarity" concern but no amount of eq will really match different mics.  There are aspects of the sound of mics that don't show up in spec sheets/frequency plots (as dsatz starts to discuss above).  I perceive or label those differences as "tone" and "soundstage" (some may group them as "signature") though it involves many different more specific aspects (a lot of which I'm sure I can't explain though I hear the accrual of their impacts).  Applying an eq curve to the results of a $20 or $200 mic isn't going to make it match a much better one.  Even applying a curve to several different very expensive mics won't make them completely match each other.  Of course not all can hear or appreciate the subtleties (see the comment elsewhere by an experienced taper who can't hear a difference between MP3 and wav). 

On the EQ topic (which was well covered elsewhere) I will again say I EQ when I feel something needs it but more often just leave them as they recorded because I'm fortunate to be able to run them in really good settings most of the time.  The caveat is that I tend to record acoustic unamplified jazz at essentially stage lip position.  An accurate mic captures what things sounded like and that's usually great, so I don't want to mess with it.  If you record anything that's going through a PA or from further back in a room (or both), each of those factors tends to necessitate some eq for correction of conditions that are adding to or changing the natural sound. 

Beyond the natural tone there's also a spatial referencing that may be even more unique  Though I'm recording with cards essentially right on the source the recordings have an amazing sense of the soundstage with very precise locational imaging.  When you play them you hear exactly where each instrument was on the stage and in reference to each other.  I recently did a three horn thing where the mics were centered and it has a surround field thing with a perfect left/center/right (from a pair of cards at less than a foot from the "center" instrument).  The depth and imaging is really great and something I don't get from other mics. 

I've got lots of examples of flat untouched recordings from the 4V's, but I don't think you're really on the fence about what the mics are capable of.  They are the very best stuff I've recorded in over 30 years of attempts.  They always sound far better than what I heard in the room even before any adjustments and I rarely do anything other than boost the levels in post to maximize the output/eliminate the cushion required in the live setting. 

If your mics require a lot of eq and the same sort of eq every time to get things the way you want to hear them then I'd suggest you're not using mics that are right for what you want to hear. 

You didn't say what or how you tend to record.  IME the 4V's are best (in a relative sense) at some distance (I mean that IMO you'll notice the greatest advantage from them relative to another capsule or mic with at least a moderate distance from the stage).  That lift and signature really helps to cut through the crap aspects of the sound as you go further back in a room.  For instance I came back with what I thought was a truly amazing recording from the nosebleeds (near last row) in a crappy and very echoey mid sized hall (others thought it was the best sounding recording from the tour, even relative to a lot of them recorded right up front in the first couple rows).  The mics far exceeded my expectations (as well as what I heard there). 

Notice though that I almost never use mine in the setting in which I think they most excel.  If you're usually close in good rooms the 4's might be an option you'd like.  If you  the 4V's vertical orientation is something I haven't quite reconciled (in terms of hard core very low profile use), though I have used them that way it was a stretch to call that spectacle but it got things done.   

Also if you're looking at Milabs new I'd totally agree with the other commenter who says wait and look for some used 4V's.  They don't come up often but you could likely get a used pair for roughly the cost of new Milabs.  If your budget is large enough for a used set of 4V's don't even consider anything else especially if you've liked how the V's sound.  I often smile that if you have the shift on typing both characters 4V is $V, but occasionally you do get what you pay for.  They're worth every penny, especially if you can find a nice used pair. 

 

[hi and lo]

There are aspects of the sound of mics that don't show up in spec sheets/frequency plots (as dsatz starts to discuss above).  I perceive or label those differences as "tone" and "soundstage" (some may group them as "signature") though it involves many different more specific aspects (a lot of which I'm sure I can't explain though I hear the accrual of their impacts).

Let's keep in mind that these are all measurable characteristics (frequency response and polar pattern). It's just that you can't independently EQ them (i.e. response at a specific angle/axis) in post; you can only EQ the overall frequency response.

If you  the 4V's vertical orientation is something I haven't quite reconciled (in terms of hard core very low profile use), though I have used them that way it was a stretch to call that spectacle but it got things done.   

The trick is to run them horizontally, not vertically, otherwise you're gonna need a sombrero. There is a unique method for running them low-profile while oriented vertical, but it's less ideal and is more of an X-Y method.

[bombdiggity]

There are aspects of the sound of mics that don't show up in spec sheets/frequency plots (as dsatz starts to discuss above).  I perceive or label those differences as "tone" and "soundstage" (some may group them as "signature") though it involves many different more specific aspects (a lot of which I'm sure I can't explain though I hear the accrual of their impacts).

Let's keep in mind that these are all measurable characteristics (frequency response and polar pattern). It's just that you can't independently EQ them (i.e. response at a specific angle/axis) in post; you can only EQ the overall frequency response.

Perhaps to an extent though I don't think any eq is fine enough to actually match up even the frequency response.  Part of it is how they sound across the entire range which involves every point from 0 Hz to 30+ kHz.  If the graphs at least some manufacturers publish overlook variances on the order of 2 dB then I'm not sure how one would arrive at any way of matching things. 

If you  the 4V's vertical orientation is something I haven't quite reconciled (in terms of hard core very low profile use), though I have used them that way it was a stretch to call that spectacle but it got things done.   

The trick is to run them horizontally, not vertically, otherwise you're gonna need a sombrero. There is a unique method for running them low-profile while oriented vertical, but it's less ideal and is more of an X-Y method.

Interesting.  Do tell (perhaps offline)...  I had heard some mention of this perspective but had not really arrived at a practical approach.  I've been thinking of how I might jerry rig something to move toward them exclusively.  The PITA factor has dissuaded me but every time I make an A/B with any other mic I think the difference is so huge I gotta figure it out for the shows I don't use them at...  I used to tell myself the crap halls just don't sound good enough to worry about it then I run them there and realize they're always a lot better. 

[carlbeck]

There's a whole lot of useful discussion in this thread. 

why not just apply an eq curve that matches the mk4v to the ck61 capsule you already own?

That may go some way toward the "similarity" concern but no amount of eq will really match different mics.  There are aspects of the sound of mics that don't show up in spec sheets/frequency plots (as dsatz starts to discuss above).  I perceive or label those differences as "tone" and "soundstage" (some may group them as "signature") though it involves many different more specific aspects (a lot of which I'm sure I can't explain though I hear the accrual of their impacts).  Applying an eq curve to the results of a $20 or $200 mic isn't going to make it match a much better one.  Even applying a curve to several different very expensive mics won't make them completely match each other.  Of course not all can hear or appreciate the subtleties (see the comment elsewhere by an experienced taper who can't hear a difference between MP3 and wav). 

On the EQ topic (which was well covered elsewhere) I will again say I EQ when I feel something needs it but more often just leave them as they recorded because I'm fortunate to be able to run them in really good settings most of the time.  The caveat is that I tend to record acoustic unamplified jazz at essentially stage lip position.  An accurate mic captures what things sounded like and that's usually great, so I don't want to mess with it.  If you record anything that's going through a PA or from further back in a room (or both), each of those factors tends to necessitate some eq for correction of conditions that are adding to or changing the natural sound. 

Beyond the natural tone there's also a spatial referencing that may be even more unique  Though I'm recording with cards essentially right on the source the recordings have an amazing sense of the soundstage with very precise locational imaging.  When you play them you hear exactly where each instrument was on the stage and in reference to each other.  I recently did a three horn thing where the mics were centered and it has a surround field thing with a perfect left/center/right (from a pair of cards at less than a foot from the "center" instrument).  The depth and imaging is really great and something I don't get from other mics. 

I've got lots of examples of flat untouched recordings from the 4V's, but I don't think you're really on the fence about what the mics are capable of.  They are the very best stuff I've recorded in over 30 years of attempts.  They always sound far better than what I heard in the room even before any adjustments and I rarely do anything other than boost the levels in post to maximize the output/eliminate the cushion required in the live setting. 

If your mics require a lot of eq and the same sort of eq every time to get things the way you want to hear them then I'd suggest you're not using mics that are right for what you want to hear. 

You didn't say what or how you tend to record.  IME the 4V's are best (in a relative sense) at some distance (I mean that IMO you'll notice the greatest advantage from them relative to another capsule or mic with at least a moderate distance from the stage).  That lift and signature really helps to cut through the crap aspects of the sound as you go further back in a room.  For instance I came back with what I thought was a truly amazing recording from the nosebleeds (near last row) in a crappy and very echoey mid sized hall (others thought it was the best sounding recording from the tour, even relative to a lot of them recorded right up front in the first couple rows).  The mics far exceeded my expectations (as well as what I heard there). 
 

Agreed, there's a lot of great discussion in this topic & I'm glad I asked the question since this has opened up some other possibilities for me. It's also forced me to reevaluate my stance on the eq use. Last night I spent some time in foobar creating a similar curve as the 4v, it's pleasing, a definite improvement in fact & not unsurprisingly similar to my old C34 recordings. The C34 uses the CK1 cap which has a similar HF lift which is why the 4V appeals to me.
Also yes, I don't doubt what the 4V is capable of, I understand that no microphone from another brand will have the same sound regardless of eq applied, it goes for all the top tier microphones out there, each brand has it's benefits & use. I'm sorry, I forgot to mention my intended use. I'm so used to being here in the past where this was a smaller community so we all knew each other personally. Anyway, I'm an open taper, no stealth, hardly ever onstage. I'm a WSP taper mostly which is why I've run AKG's always as well as some short stints with MK4's & 4023's, I tape fob which is why a low profile active solution is almost mandatory for me. So not much if any jazz, the occasional bluegrass show but otherwise it's a rock & roll show.
As far as imaging, don't get me started since I've always been an imaging freak with my home stereo & headphone rigs. Most of the shows I attend are mono pa feeds. Ugh, such a shame to lose that important aspect of recordings with the typical sub par mono feed into a giant stereo stack, it's been a treat the few times I've run onstage & it's too bad that the bands I tend to enjoy aren't they types of bands you would tape onstage. Anyway, back to the discussion at hand, thank you all for your insight, it's really appreciated!

[Gutbucket]

Let's keep in mind that these are all measurable characteristics (frequency response and polar pattern). It's just that you can't independently EQ them (i.e. response at a specific angle/axis) in post; you can only EQ the overall frequency response.

Perhaps to an extent though I don't think any eq is fine enough to actually match up even the frequency response.  Part of it is how they sound across the entire range which involves every point from 0 Hz to 30+ kHz.  If the graphs at least some manufacturers publish overlook variances on the order of 2 dB then I'm not sure how one would arrive at any way of matching things.

Measure the on-axis response of both microphones at the intended usage distance, subtract one from the other to calculate the difference between them, invert that curve and apply as a correction.   That will match any on-axis minimum phase fequency response differences.  It will also affect but will not match the off-axis response. 

Carl essentially did that last night in foobar roughly by ear measurement, rather than precisely by more accurate means.

[hi and lo]

Let's keep in mind that these are all measurable characteristics (frequency response and polar pattern). It's just that you can't independently EQ them (i.e. response at a specific angle/axis) in post; you can only EQ the overall frequency response.

Perhaps to an extent though I don't think any eq is fine enough to actually match up even the frequency response.  Part of it is how they sound across the entire range which involves every point from 0 Hz to 30+ kHz.  If the graphs at least some manufacturers publish overlook variances on the order of 2 dB then I'm not sure how one would arrive at any way of matching things. 

Right. For the purposes of this discussion, we should keep our frame of reference in the world of theory rather than reality. Factually speaking, it's possible to scientifically measure the entire range of frequency response for a given microphone and, using modern EQ tools with the most granular controls, also possible to match frequency response (assume at 0-axis) exactly.

You bring up the point of variation through the audible range of frequencies, which is a good one. I would take it a step further to also point out that every single microphone produced will have some variance from the published response charts, such that overlooked variances are going to be a problem right down to the actual microphones being tested. At some point, we have to respect the law of diminished returns and say that a match is 'close-enough,' both from the standpoint of manufacturing and purchasing microphones and for subsequent evaluations and EQ processing.

The whole point of this is to say that there isn't anything 'magical' to a microphone's signature. Everything can be measured and is quantifiable.

If you  the 4V's vertical orientation is something I haven't quite reconciled (in terms of hard core very low profile use), though I have used them that way it was a stretch to call that spectacle but it got things done.   

The trick is to run them horizontally, not vertically, otherwise you're gonna need a sombrero. There is a unique method for running them low-profile while oriented vertical, but it's less ideal and is more of an X-Y method.

Interesting.  Do tell (perhaps offline)...  I had heard some mention of this perspective but had not really arrived at a practical approach.  I've been thinking of how I might jerry rig something to move toward them exclusively.  The PITA factor has dissuaded me but every time I make an A/B with any other mic I think the difference is so huge I gotta figure it out for the shows I don't use them at...  I used to tell myself the crap halls just don't sound good enough to worry about it then I run them there and realize they're always a lot better.

No problem. I'll try to shoot you a PM later today.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

so without having to go back to the dark side & sell all my AKG gear what are my other choices??

Avoid the moor in those hours of darkness when the powers of the Schoeps are exalted.

[nebulax]

I haven't actually used a modded Oktava mic myself, but I hear good things about them.  - http://www.oktavamodshop.com/product_info.php?cPath=2_30&products_id=81

[F.O.Bean]

Noah, it's a very valid point. In the past I have been opposed to any eq for the purity of blah blah blah but I am starting to see the benefit. It's painstakingly slow with Audacity though & it might benefit me to learn & adapt in the long run anyway. I've always enjoyed the MK 4V recordings I've heard & fortunately I'm not lusting over making the change. I've also started to enjoy the MKH 8040/50 recordings I've been listening too but who knows what kind of eq has been applied in post, although they still tend to bass monsters, not too heavy but definitely more pronounced than other microphones. What it's taught me though is while I think I can enjoy the sonic signature of a given mic I may not be hearing it in its absolute raw form so who knows. Although I can say regarding the MKH series the engineering seems to appeal to me & I really like the concept of what they claim with the supercard.

I can say that I'm struggling with my AKG recordings, it's a new rig & hasn't given me the results I'd hoped for, maybe my personal tastes have changed, maybe there's something slightly off in my signal chain, maybe it's a symmetry issue or just the rooms I've taped in. Unfortunately not at all confidence inspiring & many variables to take into consideration. In the past I knew what I was coming home with when I taped a show, it was pleasing to my ears & consistently made great recordings that I enjoyed. Now not so much which is why I've even considered selling everything & starting over from scratch, quite a drastic approach which may not be at all necessary. I've been enjoying this discussion & I'm learning which at the end of the day is what we're here for.

If you aren't bothering to EQ your recordings, you certainly shouldn't be spending money on Schoeps, or any other professional grade equipment for that matter. Every recording you have ever heard that was made by a professional is EQ'd, not to mention the sound from the PA systems you're recording that some here claim is somehow "pure" when it emerges from said PA system. The whole "don't EQ because of purity" thing is, at best, nonsense from the pre-digital era when some really bad EQ jobs were more common. Nowadays there is no excuse not to.

I'd first suggest buying a decent software platform that allows real-time monitoring of EQ. I use Audacity for tracking, but it's definitely subpar for EQ. I use the Izotope Ozone 5 VST running in Adobe Audition, and it allows you to listen in real time to what your EQing is doing. Izotope Ozone I'd recommend to anyone; as to the platform to run it on, anything that allows real-time VST (Audacity doesn't; it's one of its few weaknesses) should do it. Lots of folks seem to like Soundforge and Wavelab; I've never used either. The $500 or whatever that you spend on those options is a lot, lot less coin than what you'd spend restarting on your rig or buying Schoeps.

I don't think the problem you're having is that your AKGs are insufficiently good mics; the problem is that your AKGs are making more accurate recordings and you aren't maximizing their quality with EQ. What you are liking about MK4Vs is probably the HF bump that makes vocals more clear. While no EQ can make some other mic sound "like Schoeps", it can certainly make your recordings more pleasing to the ear and, ultimately, better than what you were getting before.

You can listen in real time in WaveLab 6 as well. VERY useful function for editing your recordings! And I agree, I kinda used to be a purist as well, but it literally takes me no time at all to EQ a show to where I'm happy with it and I'll UL it! It just makes sense in the end. I certainly dont do it to everything, but if something needs EQ'd and it will sound better in the end, then why not take the 20 minutes to make it better? And awesome software like WaveLab and Adobe Audition allow you to listen to your EQ in real time, so you can really dial in your mixes

And since owning Schoeps in 2011, I too, have ZERO desire to switch mics!!! And not to mention, EQ'ing Schoeps is the easiest EQ'ing Ive EVER done!!! EQ'ing AKG's and even MBHOs was such a PITA. It usually takes just a few tweaks with my Schoeps and I'm done! But for me, most of my Schoeps recordings sound killer just the way they are. So if it ain't broke, don't fix it, right?