Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Microphones & Setup => Topic started by: DSatz on September 10, 2019, 03:35:13 PM
-
Hi. Schoeps has just announced a new, miniaturized amplifier for the Colette series, the CMC 1. It works with all capsules and accessories of the Colette series, has all the same specifications as (or in a few details, slightly better than) the existing CMC 6 amplifier, but weighs only 1.3 ounces and is 1-1/2 inches long. It will be available starting October 1.
https://schoeps.de/en/products/colette/microphone-amplifiers/cmc-1.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7IPridYbgg
The U.S. price hasn't been set yet to my knowledge, but it should be in the general neighborhood of what a CMC 6 costs.
The CMC 6 will continue to be available and fully supported.
--best regards
-
I can imagine people here who currently use the CMC6 might want to switch to the CMC1 for a more compact overall package, but I wonder if anyone around here who currently doesn't run a Schoeps body will be enticed to run the CMC1 because it's so much smaller than the CMC6. Anyone?
-
interesting. kind of reminds me of the DPA "MMP-C" compact series, which is cheaper and slightly reduced spec to their full "A" and "B" bodies.
One of the best advantages of these smaller bodies is they allow for a reduced shock mount rig, esp with stubby mini starquad cables
at full CMC spec this is cool tho ( at 1.8V it actually has considerably higher output voltage than a 1.0V cmc6 or 0.6-0.9V CMR, it also offers 4 dB higher max spl)
-
They said $849 on their Instagram post.
-
$50 over a CMC6, not awful but a tough sell considering the tons of good used CMC6s on the market all the time (many are even the newer RFI shielded models)
-
It's meant as an option for those whose particular applications make it worthwhile. It's not intended to supersede the CMC 6. My guess is that plenty of people will be more comfortable with the established, more "normal"-looking amplifier. Not everyone needs the ultra-small size, light weight, and/or those extra few dB of maximum SPL.
--Just in case it didn't stand out in the video or on the Web page, the current draw of the CMC 1 at 48 Volts is about half that of the CMC 6. Even at 12 Volts, where the CMC 6 is already twice as power-efficient as it is at 48, the CMC 1 draws only 3 mA rather than 8. So people with Sound Devices and other gear that has 12 or 15 Volt phantom powering might welcome that as well, with the caveat that when the CMC 1 is powered at only 12 Volts it no longer has a higher maximum SPL than the CMC 6 does.
--best regards
-
Hi. Schoeps has just announced a new, miniaturized amplifier for the Colette series, the CMC 1. It works with all capsules and accessories of the Colette series, has all the same specifications as (or in a few details, slightly better than) the existing CMC 6 amplifier, but weighs only 1.3 ounces and is 1-1/2 inches long. It will be available starting October 1.
https://schoeps.de/en/products/colette/microphone-amplifiers/cmc-1.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7IPridYbgg
The U.S. price hasn't been set yet to my knowledge, but it should be in the general neighborhood of what a CMC 6 costs.
The CMC 6 will continue to be available and fully supported.
--best regards
Schoeps copying b9audio or dpa??? I only say this as my b9audio team thread got hyjacked by butt hurt schoeps fans (which I'm a 20year member) knocking b9 products ( which wasn't the place or time) so I'd figure I would get my own dig in
-
No offense taken. I left the B9 thread quite some time ago, after posting there once about something that was largely irrelevant (people's misuse of the word "colette"); I realized that I was suppressing/denying anger that I truly didn't wish to express, since there was nothing to be gained by my expressing it. So I left instead, and my mental life has definitely been better since then.
The principle of "live and let live" seems to apply nicely in this forum, as well as in that other strange space where people, you know, walk around and breathe and have their lives.
--best regards
-
as well as in that other strange space where people, you know, walk around and breathe and have their lives.
Instagram?
;)
-
$50 over a CMC6, not awful but a tough sell considering the tons of good used CMC6s on the market all the time (many are even the newer RFI shielded models)
Don’t forget the schoepsnbox solution.
-
The cmc1 looks great. How do I connect these to a roland r-05? Babynbox? I'm seriously considering schoeps lately.
-
The cmc1 looks great. How do I connect these to a roland r-05? Babynbox? I'm seriously considering schoeps lately.
XLR.....it’s simply a shorter body it looks like
-
$50 over a CMC6, not awful but a tough sell considering the tons of good used CMC6s on the market all the time (many are even the newer RFI shielded models)
Don’t forget the schoepsnbox solution.
if you have any of the $300 handhelds with phantom these amplifiers are similar in cost to an nbox solution and saves you a huge extra box
-
The cmc1 looks great. How do I connect these to a roland r-05? Babynbox? I'm seriously considering schoeps lately.
you dont.. none of those provide phantom power. yo uneed at a minimum any of the small 2-channel phantom boxes (rolls pb224, denecke ps2, core sound 2phant, theres a sony (dunno part number i think its an accessory to one of their handhelds), etc
-
Very interesting. I wonder if they will still sell many CCM units once the CMC 1 is out. Schoeps capsules (other than MK 8) are going for about $800 US now, and if the CMC1 is $849, that looks like a much better deal for a compact solution than $1800 each for a CCM.
-
for sure, if anything youd think the ccm would be made obsolete by this, not the cmr
-
Schoeps copying b9audio or dpa??? I only say this as my b9audio team thread got hyjacked by butt hurt schoeps fans (which I'm a 20year member) knocking b9 products ( which wasn't the place or time) so I'd figure I would get my own dig in
I assume you're referring to my comments there. I'm not "butt hurt," nor was I "knocking" a product with which I have no first hand experience. So I'm sorry if I came off that way or offended you. :cheers:
I was simply pointing out that b9audio was imitating the look of Schoeps products in a way I find distasteful, and which reminds me of Behringer's blatant copies of Mackie and other gear.
The cmc1 might serve a similar purpose as the DPA small body, in the same way their V4u serves the same purpose as a Neumann tlm 103- but nobody would mistake either of those Schoeps products for its competitor. The b9audio microphones seem to be designed to be mistaken for Schoeps. :smash:
I just think it's ultimately much cooler to make your new cool products look unique, (and I much prefer Phish to JRAD). And the CMC1 looks exactly as you would expect from Schoeps. I bet it works well too.
-
jerryfreak, a lot depends on your personal priorities. When I started using the Colette system, I was eager to get a range of capsules with different directional patterns so that I could adapt my recording techniques to different venues and aesthetic goals. Then and only then, I started using active accessories such as Colette extension cables--and later, extension tubes (RC -- and RCY --) as well. They make my setups more discreet, and they tend to reduce the total weight of everything I have to carry, but they don't (directly) create new sonic possibilities the way that capsules of various patterns can do.
In the Colette system you pay only for the features that you actually use. (They're expensive enough to begin with ...) Nothing about Colette capsules, for example, costs extra due to their ability to work with or without active accessories. The same is true of CMC amplifiers (or OK, maybe ~a dollar extra for the special, concentric socket connector where either a capsule or an active accessory can be attached).
--best regards
-
CCM is smaller than CMC1 (and CCM L for that matter) if that is of consideration.
-
I was simply pointing out that b9audio was imitating the look of Schoeps products in a way I find distasteful, and which reminds me of Behringer's blatant copies of Mackie and other gear.
Most people would take that as knocking the product.
-
yug du, you're right, of course, that a CCM is shorter than a CMC 1 plus a capsule, but a CCM (the -L type, anyway) is slightly longer than the equivalent capsule on a Colette cable, if you measure from the point where a miniature stand adapter would hold each of them.
Below is a quickie photo of an CCM 41 VL (on the left), next to the corresponding capsule (MK 41 V) on a Colette cable. I matched up the "mounting points" for the two as closely as I could.
--best regards
-
One thing I have noticed is that the CMC1 doesn't have a smaller diameter at the XLR side like newer CMC bodies. This would require a cable between the CMC1 and an XLR socket such as on a pre-amp.
Dsatz - Is there a reason Schoeps omitted this reduced diameter?
It would have been nice if you could plug directly into a preamp and use active cables to extend the CMC1 to a capsule.
-
The immediate forerunner of the Colette series was a small series of microphones ("CMMT") that Schoeps made for the French state-run (at the time) radio network. It was arranged with the capsule attached permanently to the FET impedance converter. This could be attached to the output stage/body either directly or via an extension cable, which was simply a passive cable. This arrangement is mentioned as "prior art" in the Schoeps/Wuttke patent for the Colette system. The CMMT series never sold very widely, nor did it diversify in the way that the Colette system has (at first there were only seven capsule types; now there are about 20, for example). If there had been alternate capsule types for the CMMT, each one would have needed its own, built-in FET impedance converter circuit, making it more costly and inefficient to produce and to buy than is really necessary.
Note that only the Prototype CMMT's had the capsule in the same housing as the FET. The production CMMT's (both the F and AF series) have removable capsules that are seperate from the upper FET stage of the body. The FET Stage was detachable from the impedance convertor stage which used 3 transistors instead of a FET to transistor stage that is in the CMC3/5/6.
Schoeps made about 950 CMMT 30 F's and about 200 CMMT 30 AF's - In my profile pic you can see the 4 CMMT 30 AF's that I own - the FET stage is at the top the impedance converter is at the bottom.
There is a picture(s) of the CMMT 30 prototypes (showing the capsule with built in FET) in a French Audio magazine from Spring of 1965. I have seen the picture(s) (low quality) once on some French Pro-Audio forum but have been unable to find the forum or pictures since.
-
H2O, thank you for the information about the CMMT series. It's a series that I know very little about, and hope to find out more.
Also, I agree with you about the reduced diameter around the XLR connector. That feature was introduced some years after the CMC series itself was introduced; the earliest Colette amplifiers didn't have it. I'll ask.
--best regards
-
H2, just to confirm what you noted: The CMC 1's housing tube isn't tapered at the connector end the way the CMC 3's through 6's were/are. I was told that it would have forced them to lengthen the amplifier--and of course the smallest possible/practical size was the primary goal for this product.
--best regards
-
I was speaking with bernhard about the wide range of phantom voltage in the specs, and asked if there was any difference between powering at 30V or 52V, he said it would be 131dB max spl at 30V vs 135@48-52V (and that there would be no reason to attempt to power at 52V on purpose and risk over voltage, the 52V exists as a consequence of 48V + 10% allowance). many preamps dip ive seen voltages under 30V on P48 with some mics
in any case, if your preamp supports P12, unless it can provide a full 48V on P48, it might be just as well to run it P12 (which is also 131dB max SPL, same as a CMC6), maybe extend your runtime
-
These are cool, but for the $1700 a pair you could instead get a babynbox and actives for $1k. Or a PFA and nbobs for a p48 recorder for $700-800.
-
These are cool, but for the $1700 a pair you could instead get a babynbox and actives for $1k. Or a PFA and nbobs for a p48 recorder for $700-800.
or CMRs for around $1K
some people just like OEM gear, and none of the options listed above can drive 400m of balanced cable, maybe the PFAs can
-
I can imagine people here who currently use the CMC6 might want to switch to the CMC1 for a more compact overall package, but I wonder if anyone around here who currently doesn't run a Schoeps body will be enticed to run the CMC1 because it's so much smaller than the CMC6. Anyone?
Interesting but no real value for the bodyless folks. That’s big bux
-
I can imagine people here who currently use the CMC6 might want to switch to the CMC1 for a more compact overall package, but I wonder if anyone around here who currently doesn't run a Schoeps body will be enticed to run the CMC1 because it's so much smaller than the CMC6. Anyone?
Interesting but no real value for the bodyless folks. That’s big bux
assuming there is no significant audible difference between the CMC6 and CMC1 (or CMC5 for that matter... ive seen some mic snobs say they prefer CMC5s but never in our application...), it seems there has never been a real comp done between the various powering options (CMC6/5/1 all same probably) vs VMS vs baby Nbox vs CMR vs IPA vs IFA.
would be worthwhile to hear if there is *any* audible difference between the various options for our purposes (powering only, flavors of gain stages aside)
people have discussed the advantages of 60V capsule powering vs 40-48V from some solutions, but other than slight noise/sensitivity difference (which should be well below room noise in our application), any differences discussed seem to be anecdotal at best to date
-
People who favor the CMC 5 seem to do so on the basis that it is built with all-discrete components, and they have an ideological position which tells them that the integrated circuits in the CMC 6 (and CMC 1) can't possibly sound as good. Even people who should know better seem to be baffled by the small size of the components used in modern audio circuitry. In this case it is obvious that they are betraying their own notion of letting their ears decide, because they are instead pre-deciding what they hear on the basis of what they see. In actual listening comparisons, the size of the components doesn't matter (we're not talking about transformers, for example, where a certain amount of physical bulk may actually be required).
Of course such people will deny up and down that they are biased, but they are precisely the people who never submit to double-blind A/B testing, which can be such a great teacher of humility.
--The CMC 1 has one specification (besides the current requirement and the SPL limit) that is different from previous CMC amplifiers, and that is that its very low output impedance is strictly maintained throughout the audio frequency band. This could matter sonically if the input of the preamp or recorder has distinctly lower impedance than the specified 1 kOhm minimum. There are a couple of preamps out there that have switchable input impedance, and others that dip below 1 kOhm at one or both ends of the spectrum while being up to spec in the middle. Such preamps can interact audibly with any microphone whose output impedance rises at one end or the other (Ohm's Law).
As an example, ribbon microphones generally have higher output impedance at and around their primary resonance frequency; that impedance can even exceed 1 kOhm. This is why the best preamps for ribbon microphones, such as AEA's, have high input impedance (20 kOhms or even higher) across the frequency spectrum. Otherwise, the microphone will sound rather different depending on which preamp it is connected to. You aren't hearing the mike's own response, but its response as filtered through frequency-specific losses (possibly of several dB) in the input impedance of the preamp. In an extreme case--say, a preamp set for only 200 Ohms input impedance--the frequency response of the CMC 1 would be flatter than that of any previous CMC amplifier to a potentially audible degree, because its interface losses would be uniform across the spectrum, while those of the older amplifiers would be greater at the frequency extremes.
(It's still Really Bad Engineering to design or use such a preamp in my opinion--but to some people everything is a "tone control", and they want more "tone controls" no matter how they're obtained.)
--best regards
-
People who favor the CMC 5 seem to do so on the basis that it is built with all-discrete components, and they have an ideological position which tells them that the integrated circuits in the CMC 6 (and CMC 1) can't possibly sound as good. Even people who should know better seem to be baffled by the small size of the components used in modern audio circuitry. In this case it is obvious that they are betraying their own notion of letting their ears decide, because they are instead pre-deciding what they hear on the basis of what they see. In actual listening comparisons, the size of the components doesn't matter (we're not talking about transformers, for example, where a certain amount of physical bulk may actually be required).
Of course such people will deny up and down that they are biased, but they are precisely the people who never submit to double-blind A/B testing, which can be such a great teacher of humility.
Perhaps you are familiar with Mr. Rens Heijinis, who as I understand makes some excellent microphones and other related equipment, but he also makes all sorts of outlandish claims about modern SMD circuits vs. discrete, as well as the evils of 48V phantom power. Devotees of his Schoeps modifications are quite enthusiastic, and I am sure he does great work, but some of the things stated on this page are snake-oil lunacy:
http://www.sonodore.com/microphones.htm (http://www.sonodore.com/microphones.htm)
-
I bought a pair of these little amplifiers from Posthorn, and plan on using them to record a concert on the 21st.
--best regards
-
I bought a pair of these little amplifiers from Posthorn, and plan on using them to record a concert on the 21st.
--best regards
I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say that we're all interested to hear what you think of them compared to the CMC 6 or 5.
It just struck me that the CMC 1 gives Schoeps a direct alternative to the Sennheiser MKH 80xx series. I'm sure that fact was not lost on them.
-
I bought a pair of these little amplifiers from Posthorn, and plan on using them to record a concert on the 21st.
--best regards
I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say that we're all interested to hear what you think of them compared to the CMC 6 or 5.
It just struck me that the CMC 1 gives Schoeps a direct alternative to the Sennheiser MKH 80xx series. I'm sure that fact was not lost on them.
and DPA MMP-C
-
Of course such people will deny up and down that they are biased, but they are precisely the people who never submit to double-blind A/B testing, which can be such a great teacher of humility.
:smash: :smash: :smash: :smash: :smash:
-
This past Thursday night I used my new pair of CMC 1 amplifiers (and some other equipment, of course) to record a concert of opera arias in a church on Manhattan's upper West side. I didn't expect them to sound or act differently from other Colette-series amplifiers, but I expected them to work, and to be much smaller than my CMC 6 amplifiers.
I can now definitely report that indeed they worked, they remained very small, and that they are fully opera-aria compatible.
(Science moves forward in very small steps sometimes.)
--best regards
-
This past Thursday night I used my new pair of CMC 1 amplifiers (and some other equipment, of course) to record a concert of opera arias in a church on Manhattan's upper West side. I didn't expect them to sound or act differently from other Colette-series amplifiers, but I expected them to work, and to be much smaller than my CMC 6 amplifiers.
I can now definitely report that indeed they worked, they remained very small, and that they are fully opera-aria compatible.
(Science moves forward in very small steps sometimes.)
--best regards
what, you can't hear the extra 4dB dynamic range?
-
This past Thursday night I used my new pair of CMC 1 amplifiers (and some other equipment, of course) to record a concert of opera arias in a church on Manhattan's upper West side. I didn't expect them to sound or act differently from other Colette-series amplifiers, but I expected them to work, and to be much smaller than my CMC 6 amplifiers.
I can now definitely report that indeed they worked, they remained very small, and that they are fully opera-aria compatible.
(Science moves forward in very small steps sometimes.)
--best regards
Thanks for this report. It is good to know that they are up to your standards.
-
Has anyone else tried these yet? I’m seriously considering a pair so I can run 4 channels along with my CMRs and would love to hear a sample of these in action.
-
I don't own the recording that I made with mine, so I can't post any samples from it. But there's no sonic issue involved, unless you've been using a preamp or recorder with less than the 1 kOhm minimum input impedance which Schoeps has always specified for Colette-series microphones.
--best regards
-
I found a cool old advertisement for the collete series on page 47 of the June 1979 issue of Studio Sound and Broadcast Engineering magazine while looking for something else.
Figured you'd appreciate it.
https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Studio-Sound/70s/Studio-Sound-1979-06.pdf
-
Thanks. The microphone that people here might not recognize--the third one, counting from the left--was from the CMH series of hand-held microphones for pop vocalists. It has an internally shock-suspended capsule with higher diaphragm tension than the standard series, plus a surrounding windscreen. It's a good example of how a microphone can be very well designed for one application, but a poor choice for any applications that are very different, such as recording non-close-up live music.
The lack of proofreading is a bit alarming, though. The stereo microphone was the CMTS, not the "MTS", and the word (even in British English) is coincident, not "coincedent".
Studio Sound was a very informative magazine in its day. Their equipment reviews were very thorough and practical. And I used to read Angus MacKenzie's columns quite eagerly. I think the entire series has been scanned and is available on line these days.
-
By the way, someone (I can no longer find who) was interested in the "CMC 1 K" version with fixed/attached XLR cable.
It has evidently been available for some time already, but on the Web site it isn't listed separately beyond being given a part number on the page for the CMC 1 U. There's also an apparently real photograph on that page (https://schoeps.de/en/products/colette/microphone-amplifiers/cmc-1-u.html) if you wait for it or select its little open "dot".
Edited later to say that I "jumped the gun" a little ... sorry (and does that make me a Mother Superior?)
-
That was me! However, I'm still debating whether to get the K or L version.
The K version has been listed on that page (together with the photograph) since the L version was introduced. So I'm not sure if it really is available already. The product page for the U version still says "erhältlich ab ca. Januar 2021" and it's also not on the current price list.