Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Microphones & Setup => Topic started by: SmokinJoe on April 13, 2012, 04:12:13 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:
-
Can't you try this out and throw down a comp that everyone likes to find fault with?
Use bodies on set one and your kc5 in set two.
Or one mic with kc5 and one with straight cap~> body in a stacked fasion for the whole show.
I mean it's not like you don't have another rig to run so you can get a normal recording while doing the comp. ;D SEA-LUTT!!!!!!!!!
-
I'm voting for caps on bodies. I have never done a comp, but the pulls I tend to like best seem to be caps-on-bodies.
Then there's such things as bodies totally out of the chain vs. KC5>bodies...
The diff b/w KC5>Bodies and Cap>bodies should be zero, I would think, but I think differences are much more likely in bodies in the chain vs. not. Of course, to achieve that requires some kind of special pre or other custom gear in each case, which makes it harder to do a comp.
Though my littlebox actually does take both full-size XLR with P48 and KCY, so one could....
-
Hmmm I am interested now.
AJ, you feel there should be no difference in Cap~>Body vs. Cap~> KC5~> Body
and joe, you feel there should be?
Can you guys explain your opinions on this.
Ever since I have been apart of TS I have always ASSumed that there would be no difference also because the body is still in the chain.
Thanks fellas.
-
Hmmm I am interested now.
AJ, you feel there should be no difference in Cap~>Body vs. Cap~> KC5~> Body
and joe, you feel there should be?
Can you guys explain your opinions on this.
Ever since I have been apart of TS I have always ASSumed that there would be no difference also because the body is still in the chain.
Thanks fellas.
I know less than zero about engineering man, so I may be way off base. But I assume if you asked Schoeps, they would say, "all a KC5 does is pass the same signal from the cap through the cable to the body as is already supposed to pass from the cap to the body". And of course that is what their design is intended to do.
The other stuff people do - KCY, NBox, NBox cables, CMR etc. - all by definition require something different... so they should have more effect on the sound. A lot of the solutions are specific to one preamp (like the NBox) but I guess now you could test it using MKx>CMC6>pre vs. MKx>NBox cables>PFA>same pre. Of course, the PFA is changing the voltage some, so again, it will sound different...
-
I guess that was my assumption too. Active vs. remote.
Active I would think would change the sound and remote not so much. The kc5 id just a remote set-up correct? Or is their active electronics on the connectors/cable?
-
I recall being told you give up a little bit of quality when not running MKx>CMC directly, but I can't imagine going back to full bodies. Running MKx>KC5 and KCY with Schoeps/NOLA/Kwon bars is so convenient.
-
I :love: /. poll options.
that is all.
-
I guess that was my assumption too. Active vs. remote.
Active I would think would change the sound and remote not so much. The kc5 id just a remote set-up correct? Or is their active electronics on the connectors/cable?
The KC5 links the MKx to the CMCx or M222 body. The KCY and NBox actives replace the need for a body when run into a Schoeps VMS pre, Naint KCY pre with a KCY and NBox actives for an NBox.
Edit: KCY>Lemosax too.
-
I am probably going to sell my bodies now that I got Caps>Hacked KC5's>PFA's They are super easy to use, take up less room in my bag and if someone drops and amp or steps on them onstage its not such a tough pill to swallow as cmc6. been pretty happy so far.
-
The diff b/w KC5>Bodies and Cap>bodies should be zero, I would think,
but I think differences are much more likely in bodies in the chain vs. not.
The later I agree with. The former.... paging Mr. Satz.
-
I guess that was my assumption too. Active vs. remote.
Active I would think would change the sound and remote not so much. The kc5 id just a remote set-up correct? Or is their active electronics on the connectors/cable?
The KC5 links the MKx to the CMCx or M222 body. The KCY and NBox actives replace the need for a body when run into a Schoeps VMS pre, Naint KCY pre with a KCY and NBox actives for an NBox.
Edit: KCY>Lemosax too.
I get how it hooks up as I have run mk21/kc5/cmc6 a bunch.
I was just saying the sound differences would be more due to actives(active electronics in the cable connectors or cable)
VS.
A remote set up which is beyer ck930~> Cable~> Body.
So my question is whether the kc5 is actually active or remote, because that's where most of the sound difference would be IMO.
-
kc5 is an active cable.
-
It's also worth mentioning that the KCY is unbalanced.
-
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)
-
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]
-
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.
-
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.
-
Tomorrow night I should be able to run an AB with 1 mic having a KC5, and 1 without. At least for the opener.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
But Myco, the force overcomes.
-
But Myco, the force overcomes.
Feel the power of the dark side. ;D
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
^^
Hence my active/remote comment.
I fully agree and said it earlier in the thread that people lump this together.
-
I'm happy with MK4>KCY>Littlebox/VMS02IB setup!! Haven't ever run my caps with bodies and don't plan on it.
-
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.
Not for f'n long! ;)
-
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.
--best regards
Just to drill down on this a bit deeper, since you're the expert:
- You've asserted that MKx>Schoeps active cable>CMC is functionally equivalent to MKx>CMC. That makes complete sense to me.
- But I assume, for example, that once the bodies themselves are completely eliminated from the signal chain - such as in the actual Schoeps solutions with the CMR and KCY>VMS preamplifiers, or in the various "homebrew" solutions that exist like the NBox or using "PFAs" to go bodies>cable>preamplifier - it would be completely reasonable to assume a difference in sound quality, and prefer one over the other, right?
-
I was waiting for DSatz to throw his comment into the ring, which I always appreciate as the voice of wisdom.
I did a comp Saturday night. MK4 > KC5 (or not) > CMC4 > Littlebox > R09, with left channel having a KC5, and right channel not. I wish I had something more pristine in regard to the audio being captured, but the result is that I can't hear any flavor difference, and I don't expect most people will either. I don't consider this a definitive comparison, but good enough to satisfy my curiosity at the moment. I'll try to repeat it someday with something cleaner, like Club d'Elf on stage.
http://joe.bouchard.com/tunes/with_and_without_kc5.flac is a 24/44 mono flac.
This file has 15 second alternating sources:
x:00 - x:15 is source A (with KC5)
x:15 - x:30 is source B (without)
x:30 - x:45 is source A (with KC5)
x:45 - x:00 is source B (without)
This doesn't really surprise me. While the engineer in me says that added impedance converter could/should effect the sound, the consumer in me says "Schoeps designers are going to make that as transparent as possible, whatever that takes".
Reminder, this whole thread started because someone is selling some CMC4 bodies in the yard sale. I made the statement I prefer the flavor with bodies (I don't care if they are CMC3/4/5/6) over some of the other solutions not involving bodies. It didn't really have an opinion regarding with/without KC5's, and I still don't.
-
Personally I think the convienance of using the active cables with the schoeps outweighs any sonic differences (both with CMC6xt's and m222's).
With actives:
- it is easier/faster to setup/break down
- easier to protect the bodies in the bag
I haven't listened to Joe's comparison yet but in the times I have run actives and non-actives I can't tell the difference - too many other factors effect the sound.
-
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.
Not for f'n long! ;)
Hmmm? ???
-
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.
Not for f'n long! ;)
Hmmm? ???
It means that other active solutions are coming. Specifically, AKG and Gefell.
-
Let me tell you how this whole thing started in my mind. I recently picked up a VMS42 preamp off ebay for $282. It's like a VMS52 except provides T12 power. I didn't need it, but it would be cool to try, so I put in a lowball bid and won.
Normally before I buy any new gear I listen to lots of samples from the archive. I try to objectively listen... if I don't like the flavor I hear, I probably shouldn't buy it. The VMS42 is such a rare box there are no samples. Then I started listening to "similar gear". I assumed VMS42, VMS52, VMS02ib, and VMS5 would be sonically near equivalent. After listening to dozens of samples on the archive my opinion was "I'm not enthused by a lot of these, I'll probably end up running my Littlebox and this will sit on the shelf." Then I mentally separated the sources from VMS5 and VMS52 (using full bodies) , and VMS02 (no bodies), and decided I liked the sound of the VMS5/VMS52, over the VMS02. That doesn't mean one is "better", it just means I prefer it. I also prefer vanilla ice cream and black coffee, and you may not. I listened to tapes made with Nbox, Lemosax, CMR's, etc and decided to some extent they all sounded a little different too. They all sound good, just perhaps a little different flavor, which is only to be expected because they are different hardware designed by different people. To me the VMS52 and bodies has the "fatness" I'm looking for, and some of the others don't. And of course I've heard lots of tapes with CMC bodies and various pres by Grace and Apogee, and those are what drew me to Schoeps in the first place. So I draw the conclusion the common link is the bodies. I might be drawing all the wrong conclusions, but right now that's my opinion.
-
Where's the "like" button around here? ;D
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.
Not for f'n long! ;)
-
Have you ran the VMS42?? I'd like to hear some samples. For that price I'd keep it in the gear locker.
Let me tell you how this whole thing started in my mind. I recently picked up a VMS42 preamp off ebay for $282. It's like a VMS52 except provides T12 power. I didn't need it, but it would be cool to try, so I put in a lowball bid and won.
Normally before I buy any new gear I listen to lots of samples from the archive. I try to objectively listen... if I don't like the flavor I hear, I probably shouldn't buy it. The VMS42 is such a rare box there are no samples. Then I started listening to "similar gear". I assumed VMS42, VMS52, VMS02ib, and VMS5 would be sonically near equivalent. After listening to dozens of samples on the archive my opinion was "I'm not enthused by a lot of these, I'll probably end up running my Littlebox and this will sit on the shelf." Then I mentally separated the sources from VMS5 and VMS52 (using full bodies) , and VMS02 (no bodies), and decided I liked the sound of the VMS5/VMS52, over the VMS02. That doesn't mean one is "better", it just means I prefer it. I also prefer vanilla ice cream and black coffee, and you may not. I listened to tapes made with Nbox, Lemosax, CMR's, etc and decided to some extent they all sounded a little different too. They all sound good, just perhaps a little different flavor, which is only to be expected because they are different hardware designed by different people. To me the VMS52 and bodies has the "fatness" I'm looking for, and some of the others don't. And of course I've heard lots of tapes with CMC bodies and various pres by Grace and Apogee, and those are what drew me to Schoeps in the first place. So I draw the conclusion the common link is the bodies. I might be drawing all the wrong conclusions, but right now that's my opinion.
-
Have you ran the VMS42?? I'd like to hear some samples. For that price I'd keep it in the gear locker.
For that price I'd take it out of the gear locker and run it! :P
-
You got that right!
Have you ran the VMS42?? I'd like to hear some samples. For that price I'd keep it in the gear locker.
For that price I'd take it out of the gear locker and run it! :P
-
The VMS42 didn't work. I feel sure the seller didn't intentionally sell a lemon. He had sold his T12 mics years ago, and had nothing to test it with. The 12v mic power is putting out about 3v. I looked for simple stuff like 2 contacts touching, but no such luck. It's at Redding Audio, headed to the factory for repair. He insists on getting it repaired on his nickel, but that might cost more than what I gave him. I told him I didn't expect that. We'll see what they say, which will take a while.
-
Vark will work on schoeps pres!
The VMS42 didn't work. I feel sure the seller didn't intentionally sell a lemon. He had sold his T12 mics years ago, and had nothing to test it with. The 12v mic power is putting out about 3v. I looked for simple stuff like 2 contacts touching, but no such luck. It's at Redding Audio, headed to the factory for repair. He insists on getting it repaired on his nickel, but that might cost more than what I gave him. I told him I didn't expect that. We'll see what they say, which will take a while.
-
The VMS42 didn't work. I feel sure the seller didn't intentionally sell a lemon. He had sold his T12 mics years ago, and had nothing to test it with. The 12v mic power is putting out about 3v. I looked for simple stuff like 2 contacts touching, but no such luck. It's at Redding Audio, headed to the factory for repair. He insists on getting it repaired on his nickel, but that might cost more than what I gave him. I told him I didn't expect that. We'll see what they say, which will take a while.
Vark will work on schoeps pres!
for a price...
the real question there is; will they beat the official price by enough to warrant it.
-
I doubt anyone will fix it for free, but I'm sure sending it to Germany wouldn't be cheaper!! I have had a friend get his VMS worked on at Vark for a good price.
The VMS42 didn't work. I feel sure the seller didn't intentionally sell a lemon. He had sold his T12 mics years ago, and had nothing to test it with. The 12v mic power is putting out about 3v. I looked for simple stuff like 2 contacts touching, but no such luck. It's at Redding Audio, headed to the factory for repair. He insists on getting it repaired on his nickel, but that might cost more than what I gave him. I told him I didn't expect that. We'll see what they say, which will take a while.
Vark will work on schoeps pres!
for a price...
the real question there is; will they beat the official price by enough to warrant it.
-
Scheops germany repair prices are extremely reasonable and easily in the ballpark with Vark even with shipping taken into account.
-
Where's the "like" button around here? ;D
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.
Not for f'n long! ;)
.
My wallet may suffer if/when this comes to fruition.
-
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.
Not for f'n long! ;)
My wallet may suffer if/when this comes to fruition.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tvUI2ep3YOU/T0hqdLbceNI/AAAAAAAAK-c/Eyme2kQGrfQ/s1600/soon_meme_collection_640_06.jpg)
-
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.
Not for f'n long! ;)
My wallet may suffer if/when this comes to fruition.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tvUI2ep3YOU/T0hqdLbceNI/AAAAAAAAK-c/Eyme2kQGrfQ/s1600/soon_meme_collection_640_06.jpg)
A worry of mine.
-
The VMS42 seller told me to send it to Redding. He's paying for the repair so I'm not going to argue with him. It's good to know for future reference that Vark is an option, and almost surely has faster turn-around time.
-
I voted for (3) I never much thought about it. I don't know which I prefer.
Having run both MKx>kc5>cmc6 and MKx>nbox for years I'd be curious to hear a comp. I actually prefer my MKx>nbox tapes over my MKx>kc5>cmc6>v2 tapes FWIW
-
Vark does good work, but their bench time is extremely expensive. Nearly $100/hour.
If you like the Nbox over CMC setups, the only scientific reason I can think of would be the 20-25hz roll-off which clears up some of the sub-sonic gunk. I am not so sure I would say it's better than CMC6s, but its certainly a very high quality replacement for bodies.
This should be pretty easy to comp as mono channels. When me and Acidjack can find a good opportunity, I've been thinking of the comping the following setups, with possibly a few others I can't disclose just yet:
MK > CMC6
MK > KC5 > CMC6
MK > KC5 > PFA
MK > KCY > Littlebox v2
MK > KCY > Tinybox v2
MK > KCY > PFA
MK > Nbox cables > Nbox+
MK > Nbox cables > Tinybox v2
MK > Nbox cables > PFA
Wish I still owned the CMR's, however they'd be pretty easy to reacquire for a comp.
-
If you like the Nbox over CMC setups, the only scientific reason I can think of would be the 20-25hz roll-off which clears up some of the sub-sonic gunk.
Doesn't the nbox line use a different FET than the official bodies? That could contribute to it.
I remember they have different powering requirements, but I don't remember why in particular.
-
Vark does good work, but their bench time is extremely expensive. Nearly $100/hour.
If you like the Nbox over CMC setups, the only scientific reason I can think of would be the 20-25hz roll-off which clears up some of the sub-sonic gunk. I am not so sure I would say it's better than CMC6s, but its certainly a very high quality replacement for bodies.
This should be pretty easy to comp as mono channels. When me and Acidjack can find a good opportunity, I've been thinking of the comping the following setups, with possibly a few others I can't disclose just yet:
MK > CMC6
MK > KC5 > CMC6
MK > KC5 > PFA
MK > KCY > Littlebox v2
MK > KCY > Tinybox v2
MK > KCY > PFA
MK > Nbox cables > Nbox+
MK > Nbox cables > Tinybox v2
MK > Nbox cables > PFA
Wish I still owned the CMR's, however they'd be pretty easy to reacquire for a comp.
this would be quite the comp, get on it zach :P
-
oh yes.. forgot about that. We comped Nbox cables > PFA vs KCY > PFA the other day and while there were more than a few reasons to not declare it definitive proof, I thought the nbox cables sounded ever so slightly better. Electrically, the FET circuits are not equivalent, but it would take someone far smarter than myself to say why one would be superior over the other.
-
Vark does good work, but their bench time is extremely expensive. Nearly $100/hour.
If you like the Nbox over CMC setups, the only scientific reason I can think of would be the 20-25hz roll-off which clears up some of the sub-sonic gunk. I am not so sure I would say it's better than CMC6s, but its certainly a very high quality replacement for bodies.
This should be pretty easy to comp as mono channels. When me and Acidjack can find a good opportunity, I've been thinking of the comping the following setups, with possibly a few others I can't disclose just yet:
MK > CMC6
MK > KC5 > CMC6
MK > KC5 > PFA
MK > KCY > Littlebox v2
MK > KCY > Tinybox v2
MK > KCY > PFA
MK > Nbox cables > Nbox+
MK > Nbox cables > Tinybox v2
MK > Nbox cables > PFA
Wish I still owned the CMR's, however they'd be pretty easy to reacquire for a comp.
this would be quite the comp, get on it zach :P
I'm just dreading the thought of having to haul all of that stuff to an actual show :))
-
I'm just dreading the thought of having to haul all of that stuff to an actual show :))
a good chuckle, but thats part of the reason I never did a comp between my 2 sets of caps. It's not that I don't have the gear to do it, I'm just lazy when it comes to schlepping everything out and setting up for a night.
-
I suppose we could do at least a four-way comp (since we only have two sets of 4 identical Schoeps caps anyway) at Mountain Jam during an opening band....
-
I actually think this would be better done under a controlled environment. No need to do it at a show.
-
I'm just dreading the thought of having to haul all of that stuff to an actual show :))
Sherpas must not complain.
-
I prefer the MKxx>KCY/KC5/NBox/TinyBox/etc
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v61/dwcooper11/archons.jpg)
-
I actually think this would be better done under a controlled environment. No need to do it at a show.
OK. You bring the guitar or violin or piano or whatever you can play, and I'll bring the beer :)
-
oh yes.. forgot about that. We comped Nbox cables > PFA vs KCY > PFA the other day and while there were more than a few reasons to not declare it definitive proof, I thought the nbox cables sounded ever so slightly better. Electrically, the FET circuits are not equivalent, but it would take someone far smarter than myself to say why one would be superior over the other.
Is it accurate that Nbox cables are chopped KC5's? I've never seen an NBox in person, but I know I saw a picture once that showed the cables with standard KC5 engraving on the connections. It just wasn't clear to me that this was standard, or a special setup. If it is, I'm surprised everyone calls them "nbox cables" instead of chopped "KC5's" or something.
-
Hmmm good question
-
I think Nick orders the KC connector and builds the cable!! The one I ran didn't have schoeps cable not sure what was used.
oh yes.. forgot about that. We comped Nbox cables > PFA vs KCY > PFA the other day and while there were more than a few reasons to not declare it definitive proof, I thought the nbox cables sounded ever so slightly better. Electrically, the FET circuits are not equivalent, but it would take someone far smarter than myself to say why one would be superior over the other.
Is it accurate that Nbox cables are chopped KC5's? I've never seen an NBox in person, but I know I saw a picture once that showed the cables with standard KC5 engraving on the connections. It just wasn't clear to me that this was standard, or a special setup. If it is, I'm surprised everyone calls them "nbox cables" instead of chopped "KC5's" or something.
-
to my knowledge the nbox cables are very different to the KCY or KC5 - the FET/circuit inside is different
-
to my knowledge the nbox cables are very different to the KCY or KC5 - the FET/circuit inside is different
thats what I think is true as well.
I think Nick orders the KC connector and builds the cable
Thats also what I think is true.
-
^^ This is correct. The NBox is partially as expensive as it is because of the custom parts from Schoeps, i.e., the necessary parts to house the MK connector. Chopping KC5s, while faster, and while something that I understand could be made to work, would be prohibitively expensive.
-
OK, I think I get it. He is buying the Schoeps metal housing, which happens to be labeled KC5 at least on some of them. As explained on the AKG and Gefell active project, it's that machining to get the housings built that is the hard part.
-
Yinz are forgetting the Lemosax. IMHO the best combo w/ schoeps caps/KCY's