Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Poll

I prefer the "flavor" of which?  Not convenience, flavor.

Schoeps caps on Schoeps bodies
Schoeps caps into something else (Nbox, CMR>Tinybox, Lemosax)
I never much thought about it.  I don't know which I prefer.
You can run Schoeps caps on other gear???
I like what Cowboy Neal tells me to like.

Author Topic: Poll: Schoeps setups... bodies versus no bodies  (Read 17789 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline StuStu

  • Trade Count: (40)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2860
  • Gender: Male
Re: Poll: Schoeps setups... bodies versus no bodies
« Reply #15 on: April 13, 2012, 08:26:56 PM »
The KC5 and KCY are active and unbalanced

You are adding an FET to the chain when using the KCx cables so this can potentially change the sound.

Bernhard gave me a hard time using KC5's with my M222's since it adds a FET to the signal chain and slightly defeats the purpose of a Tube Mic.

So I think there is two directions in this thread:
1. Pure Schoeps Capsule to Schoeps Body - No Active cables
2. Schoeps capsules with no Schoeps body in the chain (i.e. KCY > PFA, nbox, etc)


I remember Mr. Satz saying this as well. Perhaps I should try it out. I really hate to go back to running caps>bodies. But if it's worthwhile, perhaps I should. I'm spoiled with the ease of an active setup. :P [size=78%] [/size]
MK5, MK8, MK41, KM184D, CK77, B3 ---CMD 2U XT, KC5, KCY, AKI---KCY Tinybox, Ugly BB---AETA 4MinX, PMD661 MKII, R-26, M-10, MR-1

Offline lastubbe

  • Trade Count: (21)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1370
  • Gender: Male
  • Copper-dome Bodhi drip a silver kimono
    • Dead-Phish
Re: Poll: Schoeps setups... bodies versus no bodies
« Reply #16 on: April 13, 2012, 08:47:59 PM »
Some of my favorite Schoeps tapes from the mid-90's were made with caps on bodies.

An old buddy of mine who was my resident Schoeps guru swore by bodies, particularly the xt's.

I like the all in ones for performance/low profile.  There is still something to be said about having an active/low profile setup to get it done in tight spots.
DPA 4023>Sonosax SX-M2/EAA PSP-2>Sound Devices 722 (24/96)
http://dead-phish.com
http://twitter.com/lastubbe
@lastubbe

Offline newplanet7

  • Hasn't heard a muddy 460/480 tape. EVER. Mike Hawk
  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3530
  • Gender: Male
  • The Place To Be...... Akustische u. Kino-Geräte
Re: Poll: Schoeps setups... bodies versus no bodies
« Reply #17 on: April 13, 2012, 08:49:03 PM »
The KC5 and KCY are active and unbalanced

You are adding an FET to the chain when using the KCx cables so this can potentially change the sound.

Bernhard gave me a hard time using KC5's with my M222's since it adds a FET to the signal chain and slightly defeats the purpose of a Tube Mic.

So I think there is two directions in this thread:
1. Pure Schoeps Capsule to Schoeps Body - No Active cables
2. Schoeps capsules with no Schoeps body in the chain (i.e. KCY > PFA, nbox, etc)
So then add #3 Cap Body vs. Cap/kc5/body because in theory the active part should change the sound.
MILAB VM-44 Classic~> Silver T's~> Busman PMD660
News From Phish: Will tour as opening act for Widespread Panic for Summer
hahaha never happen, PHiSH is waaaaayyyy better the WSP

They both ain't got nothing on MMW... Money spent wisely if you ask me...


FYI, it is a kick ass recording of a bunch of pretend-a-hippies talking.

Offline SmokinJoe

  • Trade Count: (63)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4210
  • Gender: Male
  • "75 and sunny"... life is so much simpler.
    • uploads to archive.org
Re: Poll: Schoeps setups... bodies versus no bodies
« Reply #18 on: April 13, 2012, 10:06:00 PM »
Tomorrow night I should be able to run an AB with 1 mic having a KC5, and 1 without. At least for the opener.
Mics: Schoeps MK4 & CMC5's / Gefell M200's & M210's / ADK-TL / DPA4061's
Pres: V3 / ST9100
Decks: Oade Concert Mod R4Pro / R09 / R05
Photo: Nikon D700's, 2.8 Zooms, and Zeiss primes
Playback: Raspberry Pi > Modi2 Uber > Magni2 > HD650

Offline brad.bartels

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 148
Re: Poll: Schoeps setups... bodies versus no bodies
« Reply #19 on: April 13, 2012, 10:37:51 PM »
Any opinions / comparisons of CMRs vs. standard bodies (assuming CMC5 / CMC6 - I think those are the common full bodies, never have run anything but CMRs)? Giving up anything with the CMRs as opposed the full bodies wrt sound / quality?

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Poll: Schoeps setups... bodies versus no bodies
« Reply #20 on: April 14, 2012, 08:15:18 AM »
I didn't vote because I just don't know.  I've owned them all and the sound I've gotten from any of these setups is far and away more dependent on what I put behind the mics, so I don't see any of these variables as being nearly as important as what I run them through.  Besides, I think this is all conjecture without a legitimate comp that changes nothing but the electronics.  My bet is there wouldn't be a whole lot of difference in the flavor, but we've discussed how the different setups apply different voltages at the capsules so the capsule sensitivity is changed, but again I don't know about flavor. 

BTW, another reason I didn't vote is because IMO you're asking two different questions...bodies vs. non-bodies is one question (CMC vs. CMR vs. KCY vs. KC5).  Your poll includes nbox, tinybox, etc.  In my mind, that's another separate question since the nbox/tinybox are preamps that also includes their own flavor changing features.

PS:  My other suspicion is that one of the reasons people are concluding they like bodies more is because people that use the full fledged CMCX > KC5 > etc. tend to have more invested in their rig, record open, mics on a stand, prime recording location, etc. resulting in an overall better sound.  People that have gone the CMR, tinybox, nbox route have either done so GENERALLY for cost effectiveness or stealthiness, resulting in less high quality sound recordings.  If this is true, then sound quality differences resulting have little or nothing to do with the body vs. no body variable.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2012, 08:22:52 AM by tonedeaf »

Offline page

  • Trade Count: (25)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Gender: Male
  • #TeamRetired
Re: Poll: Schoeps setups... bodies versus no bodies
« Reply #21 on: April 14, 2012, 12:13:58 PM »
Some of my favorite Schoeps tapes from the mid-90's were made with caps on bodies.

An old buddy of mine who was my resident Schoeps guru swore by bodies, particularly the xt's.

I like the all in ones for performance/low profile.  There is still something to be said about having an active/low profile setup to get it done in tight spots.

that makes sense. We're doing diffuse field recording, and the XTs provide a HF bump that is generally welcome in that sort of environment.

Giving up anything with the CMRs as opposed the full bodies wrt sound / quality?

well, the CMRs under-volt the polarization of the capsule, so you end up with a quieter output, but the same noise level (so a worse signal/noise ratio). Whether it's noticeable is an entirely different question as Steve sort of mentions.
"This is a common practice we have on the bus; debating facts that we could easily find through printed material. It's like, how far is it today? I think it's four hours, and someone else comes in at 11 hours, and well, then we'll... just... talk about it..." - Jeb Puryear

"Nostalgia ain't what it used to be." - Jim Williams

Offline Myco

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7572
  • Gender: Male
Re: Poll: Schoeps setups... bodies versus no bodies
« Reply #22 on: April 14, 2012, 12:29:30 PM »
I prefer the sound of Schoeps caps on Schoeps bodies.  I don't think I care about "which bodies", i.e. I don't think I can tell the difference between CMC3/4/5/6.  In theory the use of active cables (KC5, KCY, etc) versus caps-screwed-directly-onto-bodies should make a huge difference too.  But I haven't been able to form an opinion on that one.

I realize listening to random sources on the archive is hardly scientific, but if I listen to 20 of Source A, and 20 of Source B and I hear a consistent difference, then it's probably real. That's the basis of my opinion.

I think the use of bodies has the traditional "fatness" which I like, and some of the other setups are less so.  I'll stop there before call anyone's baby ugly.

<donning flame proof suit> :flaming:

That's what happens when you go to the dark side Joe. They promise you fame and power, but you always end up losing in the end.  ;) ;D
Microtech Gefell M200: M20/M21/M27 caps> Bumblebee MiAGi-II/Darktrain silver cable's/"Chuck" Belden cables> Aerco MP-2 or Busman modded DR-680 pre-amps> Darktrain cables & interconnects> Tascam DR-680 (Busman mod)
AT853's(card's/hyper's)>AT8533x>Aerco MP-2>Sony M10

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Poll: Schoeps setups... bodies versus no bodies
« Reply #23 on: April 14, 2012, 12:31:17 PM »
But Myco, the force overcomes.

Offline Myco

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7572
  • Gender: Male
Re: Poll: Schoeps setups... bodies versus no bodies
« Reply #24 on: April 14, 2012, 12:32:05 PM »
But Myco, the force overcomes.

Feel the power of the dark side.  ;D
Microtech Gefell M200: M20/M21/M27 caps> Bumblebee MiAGi-II/Darktrain silver cable's/"Chuck" Belden cables> Aerco MP-2 or Busman modded DR-680 pre-amps> Darktrain cables & interconnects> Tascam DR-680 (Busman mod)
AT853's(card's/hyper's)>AT8533x>Aerco MP-2>Sony M10

Offline tim in jersey

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (8)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3795
  • Gender: Male
Re: Poll: Schoeps setups... bodies versus no bodies
« Reply #25 on: April 15, 2012, 11:12:26 PM »
Hmmm, for some reason I can neither vote nor view results of this poll using several browsers/OS/machines. Curious.

That being said, "Schoeps caps into something else (Nbox, CMR>Tinybox, Lemosax)" gets my vote.

In a perfect world, I'd run the Schoeps bodies and caps every time. But in real-world situations things like band policy, venue policy etc. are real considerations. I am increasingly about getting the mics in the "spot" where they will shine best and that means relying on some sort of remote/active set up. Schoeps all the way in that regard.

Offline newplanet7

  • Hasn't heard a muddy 460/480 tape. EVER. Mike Hawk
  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3530
  • Gender: Male
  • The Place To Be...... Akustische u. Kino-Geräte
Re: Poll: Schoeps setups... bodies versus no bodies
« Reply #26 on: April 16, 2012, 12:34:13 AM »
The vote is pretty unanimous for running Caps direct on bodies.
So who actually does that here regularly? I'm thinking that not many do with all the active/remote fluffing here.
Please expose yourselves.
 I know Joe and AJ and McRoberts do, but who else?
MILAB VM-44 Classic~> Silver T's~> Busman PMD660
News From Phish: Will tour as opening act for Widespread Panic for Summer
hahaha never happen, PHiSH is waaaaayyyy better the WSP

They both ain't got nothing on MMW... Money spent wisely if you ask me...


FYI, it is a kick ass recording of a bunch of pretend-a-hippies talking.

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3349
  • Gender: Male
Re: Poll: Schoeps setups... bodies versus no bodies
« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2012, 02:12:05 AM »
The term "active" gets thrown around here sometimes as if it described any arrangement in which a condenser microphone has its capsule connected to its body (amplifier) by a cable. But what the term really says, and really means, is that there is some active circuitry--a gain stage that is powered--in the cable (or gooseneck or rigid mounting tube or whatever else) that connects the capsule and the amplifier. Since a condenser microphone capsule has very high impedance at audio frequencies, the active circuitry is generally configured as a current amplifier, which then functions as an impedance converter that reduces the signal's impedance from very high to low.

In the 1960s and 1970s Neumann and AKG offered rigid extension tubes for their respective series of small microphones with removable, interchangeable capsules. To use them you removed the capsule from the microphone, screwed it on to the extension tube, then the extension tube screwed into the microphone body in place of the capsule. These extensions were simply shielded wires with no active circuitry in them. They were situated electrically within the ultra-high-impedance part of the microphone circuit, so their use made the microphone more vulnerable to picking up hum and RFI--and despite great care in the design and manufacture of these extension devices, there was always some degree of signal loss due to stray capacitance although this was kept to a minimum because the longest these devices ever went was maybe about two feet. In their day they were useful and even necessary in certain situations. But nowadays no manufacturer of professional microphones would think of selling a product like that, because the whole RF environment is very much harsher than it was back then.

The term "active" with reference to such accessories was introduced by Schoeps in connection with their "Colette" (CMC) series of microphones and accessories early in 1974. Dr. Schoeps and the company's chief engineer, Jörg Wuttke, who had led the actual development, were granted a German patent as well as patents in other countries (including the U.S.) for this technology.

As a result, the next manufacturer to introduce "something like that"--Neumann--had to arrange it all rather differently. Their first such product, a very nice small cardioid called the KMF 4, had its FET impedance converter built right into the housing of the capsule with a fixed-length cable attached to that. The amplifier had a socket for that cable, but no way was provided for operating the microphone with the capsule directly attached to the body. Their next iteration was the KM 100 series which is still made today, with "active capsules" rather than active cables (or goosenecks, or rigid mounting tubes). So technically, everyone who uses a Neumann KM 100-series microphone is using an "active" arrangement even when the capsule is directly attached to the body.

As for sound quality, which this thread was initially supposed to be about: No one has ever seriously claimed to hear a difference between Schoeps microphones with active accessories and without them. It's a total non-issue until/unless someone can bring real evidence that they can hear a difference, or even measure a difference of a degree that could possibly correlate with hearing a difference. And I think someone would have done so by now if they really could.

The canard about not using (solid-state) active cables with a Schoeps tube microphone (M 222) is unfortunate, and shouldn't lead to any wider conclusions. I don't pretend to speak for my friend Bernhard Vollmer (designer and manufacturer of the M 222), who can perfectly well speak for himself, but it is really a matter of the idea rather than the sound. Some people like the idea of a microphone system that has no solid-state components in the audio path at all, and this is in fact available with the M 222, unlike the "tube" microphones of some other manufacturers.

But just because Schoeps offers a way to achieve a certain idea that some people want, doesn't mean that Schoeps actually endorses the idea or even agrees that it necessarily has merit. They can be neutral on such matters, as with the CMC 6xt amplifier that has response beyond 40 kHz; its existence doesn't mean that anyone at Schoeps believes that adult humans can hear sound above 20 kHz, for which there is no evidence. Rather, it's just that they had customers who wanted this, and they were able to meet that request. They try to do that whether or not they necessarily agree with all the beliefs that a request might be based on.

--best regards
« Last Edit: April 16, 2012, 02:20:19 AM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline newplanet7

  • Hasn't heard a muddy 460/480 tape. EVER. Mike Hawk
  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3530
  • Gender: Male
  • The Place To Be...... Akustische u. Kino-Geräte
Re: Poll: Schoeps setups... bodies versus no bodies
« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2012, 07:02:40 AM »
^^
Hence my active/remote comment.
I fully agree and said it earlier in the thread that people lump this together.
MILAB VM-44 Classic~> Silver T's~> Busman PMD660
News From Phish: Will tour as opening act for Widespread Panic for Summer
hahaha never happen, PHiSH is waaaaayyyy better the WSP

They both ain't got nothing on MMW... Money spent wisely if you ask me...


FYI, it is a kick ass recording of a bunch of pretend-a-hippies talking.

Offline jbell

  • TDS
  • Trade Count: (149)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4568
  • Gender: Male
  • Spreadicated
Re: Poll: Schoeps setups... bodies versus no bodies
« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2012, 10:35:49 AM »
I'm happy with MK4>KCY>Littlebox/VMS02IB setup!!  Haven't ever run my caps with bodies and don't plan on it.
Mics: DPA ST4011ER & 4018ER | Neumann kk 184 (matched)> Nbob/PFA
Preamps: DPA MMA 6000 | Audioroot Femto
Recorders: Sound Devices Mixpre-10 II | Sony PCM A10

-20        -12         -6        TDS   (32/48)     
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]][}   
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]][} 
__________________________
|Record|  Runtime: 4:19.99  {|||] 75%

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.192 seconds with 43 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF