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

[2manyrocks]

If all your processing is being done in Audacity, that would seem to be the weak link in your recording chain at the moment, IMO.  Audacity is incredible freeware, but you would find more advanced software helpful after getting past the learning curve.

I wonder which microphones each of us would pick if they were all priced the same at $500 each so that it really became an issue of how we liked them instead of an issue of what we can afford.   

[Bruce Watson]

I've always loved the MK4V tapes I've heard & wonder what else is out there with a similar sound signature? It seems I tend to prefer that little boost they offer in the high end so without having to go back to the dark side & sell all my AKG gear what are my other choices??

Consider the Sennheiser MKH 8040. Similar pattern, and it has a little high end and low end boost to give it "character". Sennheiser did this (reportedly) because the MKH 40 was flat as a ruler. And much as people said that's what they wanted, that's not what they bought, because people said the 40 was too "bland". Thus, the 8040. Which is a pretty darned good, if underrated, cardioid.

[acidjack]

I've always loved the MK4V tapes I've heard & wonder what else is out there with a similar sound signature? It seems I tend to prefer that little boost they offer in the high end so without having to go back to the dark side & sell all my AKG gear what are my other choices??

Consider the Sennheiser MKH 8040. Similar pattern, and it has a little high end and low end boost to give it "character". Sennheiser did this (reportedly) because the MKH 40 was flat as a ruler. And much as people said that's what they wanted, that's not what they bought, because people said the 40 was too "bland". Thus, the 8040. Which is a pretty darned good, if underrated, cardioid.

This is all just opinions here, but I could not disagree more. The MK4V is my favorite microphone and I <B>hate</B> the MKH-8040, which I have recorded next to numerous times (not to mention in similar situations in the same position in the same room) and recorded with myself a couple. Whereas the MK4V has a musical warmth and a nice presence bump, the 8040 has bloated, undefined and overaccentuated bass and generally a very uneven and unpleasant response. If I weren't willing to spend Schoeps money there are numerous other mics I would go to before the 8040; in fact, I personally would only use that mic as a "beater" or a doorstop (I'm being dramatic, but you get my point).

I can only comment on the applications in which I would use it; maybe this bizarre sounding microphone is great in some other application than recording rock concerts. But I don't think it's very good at that.

Of course, this whole thread is kind of silly; if you want an MK4V, you need to buy one. It's like saying "I really like the Ferrari Testarossa; what can I buy that costs half as much?"

[edtyre]

As a very recent owner of a set of MK4V caps, i have to say i am thrilled with them and having used a lot of different Schoeps
caps in the last 8 years i can't believe it took me this long to get to the best sounding ones for the types of shows i do in the
various rooms i record in. After doing a dozen shows with them, i am sold for life!! These won't be leaving my bag for any reason.

Some of the recordings i make with the Schoeps caps sound kinda dull or flat compared with how it sounded "live" at the venue,
it's after some type of EQ and other processing that i can hear a recording that really sounds nice and more like what i heard at the show.
Keeping the recordings "pure" is a joke to me. Hey whatever works for you, i'll do it my way for me 

Two years ago i started using Adobe Audition with Ozone 5 and the results have been very nice indeed. This is not a cheap way to go, but why
buy expensive professional gear and use cheap or free software.

[tim in jersey]

As a very recent owner of a set of MK4V caps, i have to say i am thrilled with them and having used a lot of different Schoeps
caps in the last 8 years i can't believe it took me this long to get to the best sounding ones for the types of shows i do in the
various rooms i record in. After doing a dozen shows with them, i am sold for life!! These won't be leaving my bag for any reason.

'Bout time, Ed.

[Bruce Watson]

This is all just opinions here, but I could not disagree more.

That's OK, I don't mind. None-the-less, Sennheiser manages to sell quite a few 8040s, and they have rather wide spread use in acoustic and classical music recording. I doubt the people buying them think they are bad. That said, I don't actually own any 8040s, I'm just answering the OPs question.

[Hypnocracy]

From Leftover Salmon Live at Ziggy's on 2014-06-07

Gefell M200
https://archive.org/download/los2014-06-07.Ziggys_Gefell/los20140607_Ziggys_08.mp3

Schoeps MK4V
https://archive.org/download/LoS2014-06-07/LoS2014-06-07S1t.08.mp3

I was surprised by the similarity.

[bombdiggity]

From Leftover Salmon Live at Ziggy's on 2014-06-07

Gefell M200
https://archive.org/download/los2014-06-07.Ziggys_Gefell/los20140607_Ziggys_08.mp3

Schoeps MK4V
https://archive.org/download/LoS2014-06-07/LoS2014-06-07S1t.08.mp3

I was surprised by the similarity.

The M200's sound good too but not necessarily within a high range of similarity by my lights.  More similar than some other mics but still different.  Comps are often interesting.  Thanks.

[carlbeck]

FWIW I don't find this discussion silly, I think it's been a good discussion & I appreciate all the insight. With that being said I bought the Telefunken's & while they are not the MK4V's they have given me the sound I was after, very pleasing to my ears, possibly due to the HF lift they have, the tubes or the overall design principle. One thing I have noticed & enjoyed is that the hyper caps sound full & lush while still rejecting the typical room junk you want to avoid when using a hyper, I'd say they sound closer to a super card with excellent off axis rejection vs the typical hyper patterns I've used in the past while still retaining a full bottom end minus the room chatter & garbage,win win for my applications. Either way I'm happy. I may end up with the 4V's when I want an active set up again but for now I am more than happy with the tubes, thanks to all!

[DSatz]

edtyre, would you be willing to share some of the EQ settings that you've found useful? Audition has very well-labeled controls, so anything that you set in that software ought to transfer to other software or even (for those who may have them) to analog equalizers.

Granted, it's a matter of personal tastes and expectations, plus you're always equalizing for your particular playback setup.

--best regards

[carlbeck]

Granted, it's a matter of personal tastes and expectations, plus you're always equalizing for your particular playback setup.

--best regards

Agreed, also thanks to this discussion I've started to eq my recordings as necessary in addition to some eq settings during playback.

[F.O.Bean]

FWIW I don't find this discussion silly, I think it's been a good discussion & I appreciate all the insight. With that being said I bought the Telefunken's & while they are not the MK4V's they have given me the sound I was after, very pleasing to my ears, possibly due to the HF lift they have, the tubes or the overall design principle. One thing I have noticed & enjoyed is that the hyper caps sound full & lush while still rejecting the typical room junk you want to avoid when using a hyper, I'd say they sound closer to a super card with excellent off axis rejection vs the typical hyper patterns I've used in the past while still retaining a full bottom end minus the room chatter & garbage,win win for my applications. Either way I'm happy. I may end up with the 4V's when I want an active set up again but for now I am more than happy with the tubes, thanks to all!

Glad you found something that you're happy with, Carl Even though they're not Schempz lol But seriously, when you find the sound you've been chasing for awhile, it can be total nirvana

[Matt Quinn]

I wonder which microphones each of us would pick if they were all priced the same at $500 each so that it really became an issue of how we liked them instead of an issue of what we can afford.

I sold my Schoeps>V3>671 combo to exclusively run my AT853s>Marantz 620 because I'm convinced that between being able to position myself in the best spot in the room (far & away the most important factor IMO) and EQing/Compressing the tape after the show, the difference in end results was not worth the difference in price. Nice software is magical.

[Gutbucket]

^^
Knowledge is more powerful than pedigree.  Although both working together appropriately often forms the killer combo.  Knowing how to use something most effectively and mastering the appropriate techniques for getting the most out of the result are the keys to getting the best results out of any gear.  We can then get the best out of things which are even more important over which we have no control- the program, the performance, the audience, the acoustics..

[stevetoney]

On the subject of EQ'ing my recordings, for me I can't say there's any specific EQ that I do.  Some shows need more warmth, some need more presence.  If I had to guess, I'm adding presence more times than I'm adding warmth.  To my ears, I love  hearing detail in my recordings and an upper middle bump often adds a pleasing sparkle or shine.

Seems that the room, the band amp settings, and the FOH engineers PA sound varies enough from show to show that there's never a one-size-fits-all setting that I can apply to all of my recordings.

That said, after I get home from a festival where I have say 40 sets to master, it's often a real time saver to figure out a general EQ profile I got from a certain stage, save it, and apply it to all of the recordings from that particular stage...and tweek from there.