Topic: High-end hypers comp: Schoeps CMC641 vs. Neumann KM150 - which do you prefer?

[acidjack]

About as clean of a comp as you can get - danlynch's Neumann KM150s and my Schoeps CMC641s, both on the same stand at about 7.5' with one set right under the other, only about 1-2" apart, both pointed at the same angle.   Both mics fed into my Oade modded R-44. 

Please guess which mic is which in the comments.  I have several thoughts on the two samples and mics (not least of which is, I doubt this will change the minds of their respective partisans), but I'll withhold until we get some results.

Band is Built to Spill playing at Irving Plaza in NYC last night.  I have done nothing to the files except normalize to -0.1. Despite that, source 2 is a bit louder due to the more peaky nature of source 1.  But still, should be a pretty accurate comp. As this is really just about mic preference rather than comparing, say, pres anyway, I think it's still pretty informative.

[Note: It is currently around 8:30am EST on 7/29.  The FLACs should be finished uploading in about 2hrs; the MP3s can be accessed now but the full files won't be up for about an hour]

Mic 1 in FLAC: http://tinyurl.com/292o5qe
Mic 1 in VBR0 MP3:  http://tinyurl.com/2wg7pp7

Mic 2 in FLAC: http://tinyurl.com/36ujnt4
Mic 2 in VBR0 MP3: http://tinyurl.com/2uccn8r

[Gutbucket]

1 sounds more detailed up top, 2 richer in the bottom.  I don't know either of these mics but if pressed, I'd guess 1 is the Neumanns and 2 the Schoeps, based solely on family sound and racial stereotyping.

[Edit- Listening though on-board Dell computer audio > AT earbuds. I'll have to listen at home to determine preference]

[tedyun]

#2 definitely sounds like it is better balanced across the highs mids and lows. My playback is iMod > HeadAmp Pico > UE10 Triple.fi's

[page]

I'm honestly surprised the 150s sounded as good as they do. I've never heard a 150 tape this good... Kudos. The 41s are the one schoeps cap that I have generally liked.

I'm going to say I prefer the bottom end of #1 (not quite as bloated, rather smooth), and the top end of #2 (much smoother up top, not brittle). Something about the top end, 8khz through about 10khz (shhh, ssss sounds on the vocals) sizzles/grates too much for me on the first. Reminds me a little bit of the sizzle on the AKG 460s or 480s. As such, based on family history, I'll say #1 is the 150s. Not much, but similar to what a minime does to the top end. Granted, I'm listening to the mp3s cause I'm too lazy to download both flacs so there may be some underlying detail that I'm missing, but it's a decent attempt. Grace 901 (optical) > Denon AH-7000 (damped, repadded & recupped)

You didn't do any EQ did you or is this post-salting?

[notlance]

I downloaded the FLAC files and they are so big (about 0.5 G each) that it took a long time to download; don’t really need over an hour of music to do a comp like this.  I only listened to about the first 30 minutes of these files.

As far as I can tell, the first 15 minutes of the FLAC comp_1 and comp_2 are identical.  Was there some mix up such that one pair of mics were feeding all four channels for the first 15 minutes of the recording?

Anyway, after the 15 minute mark the two files start to sound different.  It sounded to me like comp_2 was louder than comp_1 so I reduced the level of comp_2 by about 2 dB.  Both files have a little too much bass for my taste, but it’s nothing a little EQ couldn’t fix.  Since comp_1 sounded like it has a little less bass and a touch more highs, I preferred it over comp_2.  I also think comp_1 are the Neumann and comp_2 are the Schoeps.

However, the differences between the mics are slight, and I could live with either one.  The slightest bit of EQ could change my preference.

[acidjack]

I'm honestly surprised the 150s sounded as good as they do. I've never heard a 150 tape this good... Kudos. The 41s are the one schoeps cap that I have generally liked.

I'm going to say I prefer the bottom end of #1 (not quite as bloated, rather smooth), and the top end of #2 (much smoother up top, not brittle). Something about the top end, 8khz through about 10khz (shhh, ssss sounds on the vocals) sizzles/grates too much for me on the first. Reminds me a little bit of the sizzle on the AKG 460s or 480s. As such, based on family history, I'll say #1 is the 150s. Not much, but similar to what a minime does to the top end. Granted, I'm listening to the mp3s cause I'm too lazy to download both flacs so there may be some underlying detail that I'm missing, but it's a decent attempt. Grace 901 (optical) > Denon AH-7000 (damped, repadded & recupped)

You didn't do any EQ did you or is this post-salting?

No EQ was done at all.  I do agree that EQ will need to be done before these are posted - the venue has large subwoofers that were definitely cranking (which is odd considering the type of show this was).

To respond to notlance, yes, they are both definitely different.  Each source should be about ~30min total.  I started at the 15min mark and went to around the 45min mark, since I usually find that the mix is off during the first few songs....

Interesting comments so far.

[notlance]

“To respond to notlance, yes, they are both definitely different.  Each source should be about ~30min total.  I started at the 15min mark and went to around the 45min mark, since I usually find that the mix is off during the first few songs....”

Something odd is going on here.  The FLAC version of hypercomp_1 is 448 Mb.  When I open this file in Audacity, it is 1 hour 19 minutes long.  Hypercomp_2 is 450 Mb and is also 1 hour 19 minutes long.  I inverted hypercomp_2 and mixed the two files together.  The result is 14:59 of total silence, (i.e. they cancel out so they must be identical) difference audio from 14:59 to 30:58, and then silence for the rest of the track.  Perhaps you did not upload what you had intended?  I thought you might have been messin’ wid us to discover if we could hear the “difference” between identical audio.

So did the rest of y’all listen to the MP3s or the FLACs?

[it-goes-to-eleven]

The flacs were a bit too much..  I downloaded partials of each.... And I notice the ~4 minutes I have of each seem to be identical (the comparison script I ran is old, and may not be correct).

[tedyun]

After going back and focusing on the music between the 15 min and 30 min mark, I still prefer #2. The bass sounds fuller, eg., starting at the 25:55 mark there are extended bass notes that sound richer in #2.

They both sound excellent btw.

[page]

I'll grab the flacs later tonight and re-listen. bleh.

[DSatz]

I own both types of microphone and use them in different situations. Basic differences: The Neumann KM 150 has distinctly reduced low-frequency response (-10 dB at 50 Hz at 1 meter) and a small but definite peak at high frequencies, while the Schoeps has flatter response (it also has some low-end rolloff, but only about 4 dB at 50 Hz at the same distance). So the Neumann could help compensate for woofers that are turned up too far, for less-than-professional-quality singers in some cases, and for lifeless P.A. systems generally, while the Schoeps tends more toward preserving the original sound character of the live event, for better or for worse.

This is plainly visible from their frequency response curves (attached), which I invite people to look at and go "duh."

The Neumann is a lot like having an equalizer that's always in the circuit and whose settings can't be changed. It's a judgment call as to when a person might want to apply that equalization, which is sophisticated and well chosen for certain applications. But I just want to note that a lot of people here seem to be appalled by the very thought of equalizing their recordings--as if that would be some gigantic form of moral and sonic corruption--but when the same thing is done inside a microphone, they somehow think of it as righteous.

Physics doesn't let you get something for nothing, and microphone manufacturers don't get a special license to perform magic. Phase response and impulse response aren't as simple to discuss as frequency and polar response, but pretty much the same distortions occur when a peak or a rolloff is built in to the acoustical design of a microphone as when they're applied externally and electronically.

--best regards

[acidjack]

Well, not many surprises here... Source 1 was the Neumanns, 2 was the Schoeps.  Not sure what went wrong with the giant FLACs -will cut the sample size next time.

DSatz already said it best, but my view of these two mics is that despite both being hypers, they have very different applications.  The Neumanns are heavily rolled off and have the presence bump, which makes them very useful in an especially bad room. The Schoeps are almost insanely flat - to the point that I find that I still EQ bass out of recordings with them frequently. In fact, I might go so far as to say they are more bass-philic than any mic I have used - they even seem to pick up more bass than my DPAs, which are cardiods.  I suspect this is why some detractors like to say "Schoeps sound like mud."  Really, they just sound like the full frequency range, for good and ill. 

For this application, I'd have probably preferred the Neumanns overall, actually...

[DSatz]

acidjack, almost complete agreement. In any situation where the KM 150 delivers exactly the sound you want, the CMC 641 would probably sound heavy and probably a little less "involving."

Conversely, however, in any situation where the CMC 641 delivers exactly the sound you want, the Neumann would tend to sound thin as well as maybe a bit edgy or metallic, if that isn't too strong a term. The little peak that most of the current Neumann KM series microphones have isn't in what I'd call the "presence" region, which would be about an octave and a half lower (some other Neumann and Microtech Gefell microphones do have that type of peak, around 3 - 4 kHz); it's more in the "sparkle" region, I'd say.

As I said, I have both types and use them both, but not interchangeably. And if I had to, I could use an equalizer to make the Schoeps sound like the Neumann--but it would be harder to make the Neumann sound like the Schoeps, because it's always easier to start with something that's more neutral and color it, than it is to remove a coloration and then apply a different coloration.

--best regards

[acidjack]

^^^ Yes, absolutely.  Hence why I continue using the Schoeps.  Having compared between the mics informally a number of times between different recordings from the same venues, sometimes the 150s sound too thin and harsh to me; when the CMC641s sound too "heavy", "dark" or a number of the other adjectives I've heard, I've usually found that can be fixed (though I am admittedly often reluctant to take as heavy a hand with the EQ as it would take to make them sound *exactly* like the 150s ) 

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the CMC641s quite a bit flatter in terms of response than any other hypercardiod mic on the market? 

[page]

aren't the CMC641s quite a bit flatter in terms of response than any other hypercardiod mic on the market?

pretty much yeah.