Gear / Technical Help > Microphones & Setup
MK21 vs MK22?
aaronji:
^ I don't know specifically about the MK21, but the DPA4015 has a similar polar pattern and, I would guess, a more-or-less similar proximity effect. Here is DPA's graph for the 4015; maybe this helps...
DSatz:
aaronji, that's a very interesting set of graphs. Thanks for posting it. That's the kind of thing I wish more manufacturers would do.
weroflu, I've never used either type of capsule for close-up recording and your question makes me realize that I've never seen measurement results of proximity effect for any Schoeps microphones. Proximity effect depends on the physical geometry of a capsule, so it's not something that should vary much among microphones of the same general size / shape / operating principle. All other things being equal, the greater the proportion of pressure gradient sensitivity that a microphone has (i.e. the more it is like a figure-8 and the less it is like an omni), the greater the proximity effect.
wforwumbo:
I’ve run my 21s next to Noah’s 22s a handful of times. DSatz’s assessment is fairly accurate - the 22 in practice seems to give slightly more defined imaging of sources, and the 21 gives a more “realistic/hi-fi” capture of the room, which can give a “hazier” image.
My thoughts for taping: The 21’s bass response is noticeably better than the 22’s to my ear. The 21 reaches deeper and maintains its definition to lower frequencies. Though this isn’t to say the 22 lacks bass by any means. I also prefer the 22’s treble to the 21’s: I hear a softer and more pleasant mild roll off in the top end of the 22, whereas the 21’s treble is aggressively honest and at times unpleasant. This said, I’ve preferred my results on the 21 when massively cutting the angle to much lower than we as tapers are used to using - the best results I’ve gotten from it are in A-B, followed by 30cm/60 degrees. I think the 21 is a LOT more open than we give it credit for. To wit, a good comparison I think would be to think of the 21 more as an omni you can aim, whereas the 22 is more of a cardioid that brings in the bass. The 21 definitely captures way more room and the 22 captures less room, when deployed similarly. From OTS, I think the 22 is a more forgiving cap and will be more likely to pull a tape that is more enjoyable to listen to, though there’s something to be said about “getting it right” with the 21 (which is still something I don’t feel I have figured out just yet).
It isn’t a 1-1 mapping, but on 12/31/18 Noah and I both ran out mics on the same stand 15’ up in the air. I believe Noah ran his mk22 pair at 50ish cm PAS, and I ran my 21s in 35 cm/65 degrees. We both used Mixpre-6’s, Nbob KCYs, and Naiant PFAs (though Noah’s run 60V and mine 48V). This should give you a better idea of their similarities and differences. If the etree links are dead just poke us and we would both be happy to get the tapes in your hand so you can spin for yourself.
In the studio, I only have experience with the 21. I don’t experience much proximity effect on guitars or drums, which is mostly what I use it on. Certainly nowhere near what I get with the mk4. I like this a lot actually, as I can throw a cmc521 on my guitar cabs and get an honest omni-like capture of my Mesas while getting *some* rear rejection of me playing in front of my amp. The treble is also a lot more manageable on a source up close, ime.
prepschoolalumniblues:
--- Quote from: wforwumbo on October 30, 2020, 10:11:15 AM ---I’ve preferred my results on the 21 when massively cutting the angle to much lower than we as tapers are used to using - the best results I’ve gotten from it are in A-B, followed by 30cm/60 degrees.
--- End quote ---
I really enjoyed reading your detailed post — thanks. What does your spacing tend to look like for A-B?
wforwumbo:
--- Quote from: prepschoolalumniblues on October 30, 2020, 11:19:44 AM ---
--- Quote from: wforwumbo on October 30, 2020, 10:11:15 AM ---I’ve preferred my results on the 21 when massively cutting the angle to much lower than we as tapers are used to using - the best results I’ve gotten from it are in A-B, followed by 30cm/60 degrees.
--- End quote ---
I really enjoyed reading your detailed post — thanks. What does your spacing tend to look like for A-B?
--- End quote ---
Cheers. Also, a+ avatar - always fun finding another Spacemen 3 fan in the wild. Fun story for another time: my best friend and his old bandleader (The Lilys, if you know them) were invited in the early aughts to become their guitar section for a one-off tour, one of his biggest regrets is saying no due to health issues he was facing.
For A-B, I've used 30, 35, 45, and 60 cm. I find that with the 21 - and, for that matter, most Schoeps capsules I have used - there is a massive amount of bass response gained when you move to 30 cm, and past that it's just "more or less spacious/image of the room" with a bigger hole in the middle, and outside of that there's not a massive gain in bass response to my ear in the section. I prefer running at 30-35 cm for practical reasons.
This is, of course, assuming amplified rock music. I have yet to experiment with wider splits for classical, based on intuition I would expect for something like pipe organ (which one of my mentors, David Griesinger, has discussed with me at length) I would probably want a split of upwards of 25-30 feet.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version