Topic: Has anyone used the Sennheiser MKH 8050 (hypers)? Paging John W...

[landshark]

Hi -

Has anyone used the Sennheiser MKH 8050 module/cap for the MKH 8000 series?  I have the MKH 8040 (cards) and find them to be good, but a bit boomy on the low end, and they put out a HOT signal (my Mixpre "clip" lights go on if I don't use a pad!!).  I have the MZF 8000 pad / roll-off module, and while the pad works pretty well, the roll-off REALLY rolls off the low end, making the resulting sound a bit thin on the low end. 

I'm wondering if the hypers might be a good compromise - still capturing the rich sound I get in the mids and highs, but just enough taken off the low to give a more accurate recording (without thinning it out excessively).  Anyone have any experience with the hypers?

Thanks!

Mike

[John Willett]

I have the 8040 but have not used the 8050 myself.

The 8000 range all have an extended low end and high end compared to most mics.

If you find the MZF too harsh - how about recording normally and filtering in the DAW?

I hope this helps.

John

[DSatz]

Mr. Shark, while I don't have direct experience with these particular microphones, it seems from your message as if you're mainly looking to adjust the balance of lows and mid-lows to mids and highs in your recordings. You don't say anything about wanting to pick up a more differentiated stereo image, or about the balance of direct sound to reverberant sound--things that would definitely change if you went from using cardioids to using supercardioids.

So I'm wondering why you don't take the most direct approach and try equalization to trim the boominess. A relatively modest (2 - 3 - 4 dB) shelving adjustment of the low- and low-mid frequency response can work wonders without making things sound unnatural or unreal.

I don't know whether this applies to you or not, but I just get the sense that a lot of people here think of EQ as something that would violate the purity of their recordings. But if it's reasonably well executed (either in software or in post-production hardware), it doesn't have to. It does take practice and listening and more practice--it's a skill that grows with time. The mistake most people make at first is to use too much of it (which may help to explain its mixed reputation). Be sure to keep referring to the original recording to make sure that any adjustment you want to make really is a net improvement.

In addition, you happen to be using a type of microphone which has built-in EQ circuitry; on its own, its transducer doesn't have flat frequency response. So if you were to use some EQ to reduce the bass and mid-bass, in a very real way you'd be reducing the amount of EQ rather than increasing it; there would be no ethical boundary that hasn't already been crossed, so to speak. The built-in EQ in your microphones results in nearly ruler-flat response in the published charts, but apparently that isn't the characteristic that you need at the moment. It's a good starting point--but a manufacturer can't anticipate all the different circumstances and personal tastes of their customers and make the microphone "know" what is wanted somehow. So I'd say (as I wish I could say to a lot of people on this board) go ahead and try some EQ.

--best regards

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

I just get the sense that a lot of people here think of EQ as something that would violate the purity of their recordings. But if it's reasonably well executed (either in software or in post-production hardware), it doesn't have to. It does take practice and listening and more practice--it's a skill that grows with time. The mistake most people make at first is to use too much of it (which may help to explain its mixed reputation). Be sure to keep referring to the original recording to make sure that any adjustment you want to make really is a net improvement.

--best regards

I think a lot of the aversion to post-processing is a result of so much of it being poorly done.  I remember trading for dead shows and getting tapes that someone had "improved" with no access to the original recording.  Lots of those tapes were horrible.  It's a lot different now that we can revert to the digital master.

To the OP,

you should try his recommendation before buying new mics.  You can do a lot with free tools.  After years of being a bigot against using EQ I finally realized that I was normalizing with dither so I wasn't circulating the original bit pattern anyway.  Now I apply a mild bass roll-off on my preamp at boomy venues to keep the signal limited at the recorder (as you mention you want to do) and some mild attenuation in post as necessary.  My recordings sound much more balanced.  I used the AK50s for a while and had the same opinion of my recordings as you had to your thin sounding recording using the HPF module. I've gone back to some of those and applied an EQ curve that is the inverse of the charted frequency response and the results were really very good.

[yug du nord]

brilliant satz brilliant

[landshark]

Typical DSatz response, boatloads of useful information presented in a condensed, highly readable format...<grin>

Thanks for the reply! 

Regarding EQ, I have no hesitations in using EQ (and compression, stereo expansion, etc.) mostly to compensate for rooms with poor acoustics, or situations where the venue could only afford monkeys to run the sound board (or so it would seem).  I just want the end recording to sound as good as possible.  I usually do run a bass roll-off in post on my recordings, plus a little bump in the mid-highs to add some "presence".  I agree that the key is to have a light touch - it usually takes me an hour or so to get things set to where I think the adjustments are an improvement over the raw sound.  Of course, I work in 24/96 to avoid losing too much due to least significant digits, and inevitably when I convert to 16/44 (or sometimes mp3), the sound comes out completely different than I intended (usually I lose a lot of low end).  I'm still working on that (I use soundforge 9, Adobe Audition and occasionally Reaper).

I wasn't aware of the built-in EQ circuitry, which is information highly relevant to my case.  My theory was that since hypers usually lose low end (relative to cards and omnis), the hyper caps might be the perfect balance and capture the sound I want right out of the box.  However, since Sennheiser has included some active EQ in the mic, I expect they've tuned things such that the frequency response of the hypers is pretty close to the cards.  When I looked at the frequency plots of both mics, they looked pretty identical, so absent other data I have to assume the hypers would have similar low end performance as the cards.  Having some real world use reports that the hypers have a different sound than the cards would be informative.  Based on what I know so far, though, it appears a capsule switch is not the panacea I'd hoped.  Ah well, the search for the perfect sound continues...<grin>

Mike

[landshark]

Hi John -

Actually, I think the MZF sound is the opposite of harsh - it takes out the rumble as desired without coloring the sound.  The fixed low cut (-3 db @ 16hz) seems to work well.  All in all, I really like it.  The only gripe I have is the switchable roll-off filter - when it's switched on, it takes out some of the punch of the base (-3 db @ 160hz). 

FYI, at a recent concert that was pegging around 100db at my seat (using an iPhone app to measure, so there's probably some margin of error there), the signal out of the mics with both the 10db pad off and the roll-off off was too hot for my MixPre - the red "clip" light kept going off to the beat.  With the pad switched on, the clip light stopped flashing.  I didn't try it with just the roll off and no pad, that would have been useful to know if that was sufficient.   

Mike

[DSatz]

Mike, if it wouldn't make you too crazy in your hour of need, now I'll argue the other side of the case a bit. Supercardioid can be an extremely useful pattern if well done, but it's harder to do than cardioid or (especially) omni. Again just going by the postings on this board, I think the pattern tends to be misunderstood and misperceived--as evidenced by the fact that so many people don't care to distinguish it from hypercardioid (nor do they distinguish hypercardioids from shotguns--a categorical distinction, but a whole other topic). It might help if people would think of supercardioid as a step of about 1/3 of the distance from cardioid to figure-8.

Even with the built-in EQ that keeps the 0-degree response of Sennheiser's MKH microphones very similar among the different patterns, the pattern choice still has a big effect on the character of low-frequency pickup in a typical performance space where a fair percentage of the sound energy is arriving off-axis (particularly when you're using closely-spaced directional microphones, since you never aim them at the center of the sound sources). The difference is greater than many people expect, and the explanation of that difference has more to do with rooms and standing waves than anything you'll ever see printed on a microphone's spec sheet.

I don't want to talk you out of trying something that still might bring you closer to what you want, even if it's not for the exact reasons that you were expecting. As you may know, I generally use another brand of supercardioid that doesn't have electronic EQ built in (it's a modular series with interchangeable capsules, so using built-in EQ to compensate for the deficiencies of specific capsules isn't generally a design option). I can't help wondering whether you might find that it gives you more of what you're looking for and less of what you're not, but I'm determined not to be a cheerleader for My Brand here. And the Sennheiser MKH 50 (supercardioid) does have a built-in switch that reduces its low-frequency output with a very gentle slope, reaching about 4 dB at 50 Hz. I think that's an interesting and smart design choice, and one that you might well find useful in some situations.

[landshark]

Hmm, I hadn't even realized the MKH 8050 were super- and not hyper-cardioids.  Looks like I fail Reading Comprehension 101. 

I'm still struggling with the difference between the two though.  You comment that supers are 1/3 the way to figure 8 - would hypers be 2/3 the way?  It seems like the rear lobe in the hypers is a bit larger.  One other question - is the difference between cardioid, super and hyper a matter of degrees of the same thing, or are they usually accomplished using completely different capsule design and type? 

The off-axis energy issue is critical though.  Between a cardioid and a super (or hyper), would you expect less pickup perpendicularly (90deg) out of the supers and more out of the cardioids?  Would the difference be small, medium or large?  If medium or large, I can see where that could change the sound significantly. 

As far as Your Brand, I'm guessing it rhymes with Popes?  <grin>  I have several AKGs, mostly 460's with actives and 480's with cards and hypers, so I'm not sold on any one brand.  I do like the Sennheiser 8000 series due to the extremely compact size and outside of the issues with them having a hot signal and perhaps too much low end, they do sound great.   

Mike

[John Willett]

Hmm, I hadn't even realized the MKH 8050 were super- and not hyper-cardioids. 

Actually they are neither 

The pressure-gradient microphone with the best directivity of 4 is dubbed the hyper-cardioid.
Its disadvantage, however, is the lack of rejection for sound coming directly from the rear
(180º). The rejection here is only 6dB. Trying to optimise the directional characteristics,
Sennheiser created a super-cardioid microphone with equal rejection at 90º and 180º. This
improves the rear rejection figure without sacrificing the side rejection figure too much, and still
retains a high directional coefficient of 3.86.

The theoretical figures for the various cottage-loaf microphones are:-

Hyper-Cardioid
The hyper-cardioid microphone has it’s angle of maximum rejection at 109.5º.
It is optimised for the maximum directivity coefficient of 4.0.
Rejection at 90º is -12dB
Rejection at 180º is -6dB

Super-Cardioid
The super-cardioid microphone has it’s angle of maximum rejection at 125.3º.
It is optimised for the maximum front to rear index and has a directivity coefficient of 3.73.
Rejection at 90º is -8.7dB
Rejection at 180º is -11.6dB

Sennheiser Super-Cardioid
The Sennheiser super-cardioid microphone has it’s angle of maximum rejection at 120º.
It is optimised for equal attenuation at 90º and 180º, it has a directivity coefficient of 3.86.
Rejection at 90º is -9.5dB
Rejection at 180º is also -9.5dB

The attenuation at 90º is equal to the attenuation at 180º (the 180º signal being out-of-phase of
course), this means that the attention is concentrated on the sound coming to the front of the
microphone. The disadvantage of the hyper-cardioid is that sounds from the rear can be too
high due to the lack of rear attenuation, and the disadvantage of the standard super-cardioid is
that its side rejection is not enough.

Please note that these are the theoretical figures which may differ slightly in practice.

I hope this helps make things clear.

[landshark]

Hi John -

Thanks!!!  You don't happen to have the same information about the straight cardioids, do you?  It'd be useful to know what I've got right now....

[John Willett]

Hi John -

Thanks!!!  You don't happen to have the same information about the straight cardioids, do you?  It'd be useful to know what I've got right now....

Cardioid
The cardioid microphone has it’s angle of maximum rejection at 180º.
It has a directivity coefficient of 1.7.
Rejection at 90º is -6dB
Rejection at 180º is about -25dB

This is from memory, I hope I have got this right as I don't have immediate assess to the figures.

[landshark]

Thanks John!

[aracu]

I use the 8050 often, for location film boom or hidden mic, ADR, as a spot mic for classical recordings, and in mid-side combination with Schoeps mk8.

It is my favorite mic to use for film dialogue. For classical music, it is a good spot mic for
adjusting problems in ensemble balance, and can work well as a mid mic for close up mid-side recordings in bad acoustics. It sounds dull though if used at a moderate distance from
the source.

Although it is a great mic for film dialogue, on classical soprano it can sound "hard"
for lack of a better word, and too colourless for pop vocals.   

It has a nearly colourless signature sound, with a slight sparkle on top and a well balanced
bass.

[jazzgtrl4]

Pat Myers (DatPat) runs the 8050's. I have taped with him alot running them, stealth and otherwise. He doesn't even own the the 40's. Pulled great tapes with the 50's.