Topic: Schoeps mk>cmc6xt (or cmc6) VS mk>VMS5U? Any sonic difference?

[Muzeon]

Hi,
Since so many of you are schoeps users, wonder any has ABed Schoeps mk>cmc6xt (or cmc6) VS mk>VMS5U? Any sonic difference, such as HF emphasis, self noise, or tonality difference? I know cmc6xt goes up to 40kHz, and VMS5U is 80kHz. I did a very basic test between cmc6 with my mk41 cap, and mk41 with my VMS5U. The VMS5U seems have a round sound, very slight though.

Any thoughts? I'm going to use my schoeps recorded into 722. Since I like to have as light and portable a rig, very tempted to use 2 cmc6xt instead of my VMS5U, but felt somehow the VMS5U sounds better. Thanks!

[Brian Skalinder]

So I think you're asking how these two combinations sound different:

MK41 > CMC6XT > 722
and
MK41 > VMS5U > 722

Only one way to find out...have fun running the gear both ways in a variety of environments and types of music and see what you like! 

[johnw]

I was thinking he meant:

mk41>KCY>VMS5U>722
compared to
mk41>CMC6xt>VMS5U>722

That way the only variable is the CMC6xt. Would be an interesting test.

[Brian Skalinder]

I was thinking he meant:

Oops.  Yes, that's what I meant...forgot about the KCY.  Thanks. 

[Muzeon]

ah, I mean:

mk41>KCY>VMS5U>722
compared to
mk41>KCY>AKi2C>CMC6xt>722

Trying to use just mk capsules in the blimp. Thanks. Sorry about the confusion.

[johnw]

will the vms5u allow you to bypass the preamp and only polarize the capsules? If not, I think that you might need to test the cmc6xt both with and without the vms5u pre to really know what effect it has.

[Muzeon]

I can't bypass the preamp of the VMS5U. I may have to do that test too.

[DSatz]

People who choose the Schoeps CMC 6-- xt amplifier over the regular CMC 6-- generally choose it without listening to it first, and generally because of two beliefs:

[1] that signal components beyond 20 kHz can enhance sound quality even if those higher-frequency signal components aren't directly audible; and/or

[2] that equipment with response beyond 20 kHz has capacity to spare, and therefore will have no difficulty handling signals at or below 20 kHz.

There's never been any repeatable scientific evidence of [1], despite many years of highly-motivated people looking for it to be true. [2] on the other hand can be true under some conditions, depending on what exactly is meant. But as sloppy generalizations go, it can be remarkably sloppy.

First, some basic realities: For a board populated mainly by males above the age of fourteen, many of whom listen to loud, amplified music with plenty of distortion (both deliberate and accidental) in it, I think it's safe to assume that just about no one here has undamaged hearing up at 20 kHz, let alone beyond. And very few playback systems can reproduce 20 kHz accurately, let alone higher.

Many speakers and some amplifiers, when driven at 20 kHz and above, put out distortion products that fall into the audible range. Thus whenever any effects from the presence of 20+ kHz signals are heard, it becomes a major priority to rule out speaker and in some cases amplifier misbehavior. But that concern is just what I find lacking in all studies to date (especially from Japan) that I have seen which attempt to show audible effects from preserving signals above 20 kHz.

--Anyway, an important thing to realize about the Schoeps CMC 6-- xt amplifiers is that unlike the regular CMC 6--, they aren't flat up to 20,000 Hz; they have a certain rise in the top octave. This means that any listening comparison between an "xt" and a non-"xt" setup can never prove that response beyond 20 kHz is audible, unless that rise is compensated for.

Also, the existence of this amplifier model (or its digital counterpart, the CMD 2 xt) doesn't reflect an endorsement by Schoeps of any theories about audibility beyond 20 kHz. It was merely a response to a customer's request which Schoeps was willing and able to fulfill. Being a small company, they are inclined to do that when they reasonably can.

--best regards

[Muzeon]

Dear DSatz,
Thanks for posting your thoughts. True I agree most human hearing range is at very best up to 20kHz, I guess most people may be below that by now actually. And not sure how many (at all) speakers can reproduce way beyond 20kHz. However, I am recording for sound design, in 192kHz, sometimes time stretching, pitching down, or processing sounds. That's why I think any more sonic info on the upper range would help in my audio work. But I do hear about the upper octave enhancement between cmc6 and cmc6xt, That one of the reason why I'm still holding on to the VMS5U. I think specs, cmc6xt up to 40kHz, vms5u is 80kHz (!).
Do appreciate any othe info, experience regarding having used cmc6xt. Thanks again.

[page]

There's no repeatable scientific evidence of [1], despite many years of people looking for it to be true; there's been a series of rather tendentious studies from Japan in recent years, none of which I consider valid (though the more recent ones have been beautifully written so as to preach to the choir while evading the crucial point of just what signals really were being heard by the listening panel).

Do you have the citations? (for bedtime reading later) Thanks.

And for a board that is mostly populated by human males above the age of fourteen, most of whom listen to loud, amplified music with plenty of distortion (both deliberate and accidental) in it, I think it's safe to assume that just about no one here has undamaged hearing up at 20 kHz, let alone beyond.

Agreed. I'm under 30, have generally taken care of my hearing via protection, and I have trouble past 14-15khz. As few as 3 years ago, I could still hear near 0db across the (tested) frequency board, and in last year's test I was missing almost 5db around 1khz in one ear (didn't tell me which one, and I don't notice it much, think it's my left ear). Not sure if it was a bum test/response or if my brain is compensating elsewhere for it.

[scb]

http://www.earthworksaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/th_world_beyond_20khz.pdf