Topic: Schoeps MK4 vs. SP-CMC-4U (AT 853) recording field?

[loughney]

I had been recording with the SP-CMC-4U and have made the switch to Schoeps MK4. I seem to be picking up a bit more side with the MK4s. Their polar patterns look very similar, anyone have thoughts?


thanks,
John

[morst]

I had been recording with the SP-CMC-4U and have made the switch to Schoeps MK4. I seem to be picking up a bit more side with the MK4s. Their polar patterns look very similar, anyone have thoughts?

Top quality mics have excellent off-axis pickup.
The difference between them and lower quality mics is that the off-axis pickup of lesser mics will not typically be as similar frequency-by-frequency.
A sound coming in from the side of the sound field will sound perfectly realistic and with the same timbre as if it were on-axis, but at lower levels than a sound from the front.


In a soundscape composed of figure/ground/field, suddenly you are finding that background sounds are now coming in as accurately as the figures you are recording within the ambient field!


The first time I heard a B&K (DPA) 40XX recording made from right near my vantage point, it sounded to me like it was made in an operating room!!!

[morst]

Schoeps even makes the GRAPH more accurate. Brag about 7 frequencies, not just 4!

[daspyknows]

That's where the MK41s come in handy.  I tend to use the MK41s in larger venues and when running further back.  The MK4s up closer and smaller venues. 

[RyanJ]

I run both of these mics and have ran them a few times together. It does come down to preference. I feel the the Schoeps have more of a flat response and neutral sound. Whereas the AT's may bring out more of the highs, if that makes sense? Without the 4.7k mod, the bass can be overpowering on the ATs. I've only had a few problems with the MK4s when I am running too close to the stack and my recorder is already at the low end of levels with bass. I will say that with the flat response of the MK4s, sometimes a bit of compression is needed on the lower end to expose some of the mids/highs. Because they can get buried.


IMO, the AT853 mics are the best mics to get on a budget and functionality (with the 4.7k mod) in order to run a low profile but get some really great results. When I am feeling lazy, thats the setup I go with.

[loughney]

I run both of these mics and have ran them a few times together. It does come down to preference. I feel the the Schoeps have more of a flat response and neutral sound. Whereas the AT's may bring out more of the highs, if that makes sense? Without the 4.7k mod, the bass can be overpowering on the ATs. I've only had a few problems with the MK4s when I am running too close to the stack and my recorder is already at the low end of levels with bass. I will say that with the flat response of the MK4s, sometimes a bit of compression is needed on the lower end to expose some of the mids/highs. Because they can get buried.


IMO, the AT853 mics are the best mics to get on a budget and functionality (with the 4.7k mod) in order to run a low profile but get some really great results. When I am feeling lazy, thats the setup I go with.

I ended up getting the regular, but then upgraded (downgraded) to the 4.7k mod as I found the ones with out the mod ran way to hot in smaller clubs.  But what you said makes sense.

[loughney]

That's where the MK41s come in handy.  I tend to use the MK41s in larger venues and when running further back.  The MK4s up closer and smaller venues.

Just for reference, larger venue = ?? and smaller venue = ?? - just so I can get a scale for reference.

[daspyknows]

That's where the MK41s come in handy.  I tend to use the MK41s in larger venues and when running further back.  The MK4s up closer and smaller venues.

Just for reference, larger venue = ?? and smaller venue = ?? - just so I can get a scale for reference.

larger venues would be arenas (Chase Center), stadiums (Levi's Stadium) and bigger festivals like Outside Lands for local reference.  I sometimes run 41s from the loge at the Fox as well on the rare occasions I am in the loge.  For arenas I will run MK4s if I am in the first 15 rows or so.

[loughney]

That's where the MK41s come in handy.  I tend to use the MK41s in larger venues and when running further back.  The MK4s up closer and smaller venues.

Just for reference, larger venue = ?? and smaller venue = ?? - just so I can get a scale for reference.

larger venues would be arenas (Chase Center), stadiums (Levi's Stadium) and bigger festivals like Outside Lands for local reference.  I sometimes run 41s from the loge at the Fox as well on the rare occasions I am in the loge.  For arenas I will run MK4s if I am in the first 15 rows or so.

Gotcha - I was wondering if GAMH = smaller and Fillmore / Fox = larger ...

[daspyknows]

That's where the MK41s come in handy.  I tend to use the MK41s in larger venues and when running further back.  The MK4s up closer and smaller venues.

Just for reference, larger venue = ?? and smaller venue = ?? - just so I can get a scale for reference.

larger venues would be arenas (Chase Center), stadiums (Levi's Stadium) and bigger festivals like Outside Lands for local reference.  I sometimes run 41s from the loge at the Fox as well on the rare occasions I am in the loge.  For arenas I will run MK4s if I am in the first 15 rows or so.

Gotcha - I was wondering if GAMH = smaller and Fillmore / Fox = larger ...

Run 4's at both except Fox upstairs.  I also tend to be in the middle of the crowd so close. 

[Popmarter]

As for  , my experience is the sp-cmc-4u on a hat always come out fine if you find a good spot (FOB will do). I am always surprised by the fact it records so little crowdnoise (even if people are standing real close). In similar situations my Nevatons or Milab vm-44 pick up much more crowdnoise. Which makes it always a challenge: go for superstealth and get an - all in one - good recording, or bit less stealth and a - potentially better - recording but with some editing work afterwards.

This whole Zoom f3 32bit technology has made it even more practical. Just record and no need for levels. Feels strange the first time, but you get used to it very fast.

[DSatz]

When you put any microphone close to a solid object, that will affect the microphone's directional pattern, quite possibly by a large amount. The whole way that a single-diaphragm cardioid works, to whatever extent sound is kept from reaching the rear of the capsule, you'll get a broader pickup pattern. But wavelength matters a lot, too, since at low and low-mid frequencies, a head-sized object is relatively insignificant (just as a small rock sticking up through the surface of a pond can't stop an entire wave from passing right around it). So lower frequencies aren't affected nearly as much as the higher ones that we mainly localize with, unless the interfering object has a very broad surface.

[Gutbucket]

Following on that, it's been stated here many times before, but bears repeating and directly follows from the above, that just as an omnidirectional-pattern microphone no longer operates in a fully omnidirectional way across the full frequency range when used in this manner- becoming much more pseudo-cardioid-like at upper-mid and higher high frequencies due to the acoustic shadowing of the close object - similar altercations happen with directional pattern microphones used this way.  Actually, the effect is somewhat less predictable and more complex than with omnis due to omnis lacking rear vent access paths to the back side of the diaphragm which directional pattern microphones employ, and all the complications that come with that whenever the microphone is not immediately surrounded by free space.

A practical implication of this when making comparisons between the two pairs is be to shoot for precisely duplicating the arrangement of the two microphone pairs as closely as possible, not only in terms of the spacing and angle relationship between the pair but also in terms of the position of the pair in relation to the solid object that is in extremely close proximity, partly so that the external influence of that solid object will be as similar as possible in both setups.  Wearing them just a bit further forward or back, up or down, or closer or farther from the surface can make an audible difference.  When listening specifically for this effect, listen to the effect on off-axis and diffuse/reverberant sound as well as the direct-arriving sound of primary interest.

Beyond minimizing variables for comparison purposes, this kind of setup consistency in achieving good repeatability of the configuration will also be beneficial in terms of achieving good consistent repeatability of response in regular use, night to night .