Topic: digital mics (portable AES 42, schoeps, neumann)

[NOLAfishwater]

did Schoeps discontinue the CMD digital body? I don't see it listed on their site anymore.

[StuStu]

did Schoeps discontinue the CMD digital body? I don't see it listed on their site anymore.

I was wondering the same thing. I noticed this a week or so ago.

[H₂O]

I would doubt it but I would wait to see if anything pops at AES next month

I would hope they come out with a VST type version - I asked Bernhard about this about a year ago or so and he said he didn't think they would.  You would only need one AES input and based on the senhiezer version (they already have a body like this) it should easily fit into a single CMC body and probably be more efficient (less power needed - less components).

[H₂O]

According to Schoeps they have discontinued the CMD but do still have a stock.  They are planning on a follow up solution but they do not know when it will be available

[dream]

According to Schoeps they have discontinued the CMD but do still have a stock.  They are planning on a follow up solution but they do not know when it will be available

Mr. Wittek from Schoeps wrote me some time ago they're working on a new CMD version with a DSP in the mic body, similar to the Neumann Solution-D mics. He was negative about AES42 Mode 2 for external word clock sync.
I don't want a SRC between mic and recorder and all my Solution-D mics are synchronized every time I use more than one. I have Schoeps mics too and would like to use the capsules in a synced setup together with my Neumann stuff. So please, if somebody thinks alike having word clock sync for digital mics is a must, let Schoeps know! Mr. Wittek doesn't see any problem implementing SRCs which came as a surprise for me. Neumann seems to think very different in this regard. SRCs maybe be no problem in ENG but for high quality recording they're a no no ...

[Gutbucket]

SRCs maybe be no problem in ENG but for high quality recording they're a no no ...

Is this sentiment based on actual use of the current hardware SRCs in these components or perhaps not-misplaced inertia from historical usage of older, less competent and less transparent SRC implementations? 

Software SRC has progressed significantly, reaching a point where many are of the opinion that high quality routines do not cause perceivable problems in the practical sense of listening, or in measurement down to reasonable levels.  I have no experience with these hardware ASRC implementations, but can only imagine they would be comparable to the modern high quality software algorithms.. that’s my own assumption, which may be incorrect.    I tend to trust Schoeps engineering, especially when is seems they may have reached a conclusion based on engineering aspects, which can be seen to be at odds with their position to market quality recording gear of the highest caliber to customers willing to pay for it.

Curious to hear other’s thoughts, especially of those with hands-on experience with these.

[dream]

SRCs maybe be no problem in ENG but for high quality recording they're a no no ...

Is this sentiment based on actual use of the current hardware SRCs in these components or perhaps not-misplaced inertia from historical usage of older, less competent and less transparent SRC implementations? 

I don't use hardware SRCs while recording, they're only used to feed digital outputs of synthesizers without word clock input into my DM2000 mixing desk and the synced environment. Software SRC, especially the iZotope SRC, I use regulary to SRC 96 kHz recordings to 44.1 kHz. Maybe there are hardware SRCs which are as good as the best software ones, Weiss comes to mind, but there are general issues with SRCs, like additional latency and different qualities among them and/or between different rates. Neumann, leading the digital microphone development, clearly showed that word clock synced microphones are doable. For me this is the direct, most elegant way. Digital mics are wonderful and I hate the thought to compromise the output with additional processing. In a mixed environment with synced and free running mics you have some microphones with additional latency. The RCS software from Neumann reports latency in samples, a SRC would change that.

[Gutbucket]

Thanks.

[dream]

Received a note today that Mode 2 from Schoeps is coming too but not a priority.

[John Willett]

According to Schoeps they have discontinued the CMD but do still have a stock.  They are planning on a follow up solution but they do not know when it will be available

Mr. Wittek from Schoeps wrote me some time ago they're working on a new CMD version with a DSP in the mic body, similar to the Neumann Solution-D mics. He was negative about AES42 Mode 2 for external word clock sync.
I don't want a SRC between mic and recorder and all my Solution-D mics are synchronized every time I use more than one. I have Schoeps mics too and would like to use the capsules in a synced setup together with my Neumann stuff. So please, if somebody thinks alike having word clock sync for digital mics is a must, let Schoeps know! Mr. Wittek doesn't see any problem implementing SRCs which came as a surprise for me. Neumann seems to think very different in this regard. SRCs maybe be no problem in ENG but for high quality recording they're a no no ...

I agree and I wish Schoeps would see this.

Another advantage of Mode-2 is that there is a constant phase relationship (close to 0°) between different microphones independent of cable length or other influences.

Also - Mode-2 mics can also be run as Mode-1; so if Shcoeps make the new ones as Mode-2 they can do both.

It would actually also help Schoeps sales for people wanting to mix Schoeps, Neumann and Sennheiser into an existing Mode-2 set-up. At the moment they would stick to Neumann and Sennheiser and ignore the Schoeps.

I do wish everyone would standardise on Mode-2!!!

[John Willett]

As an addendum...........

I have written two AES papers on AES42 digital microphones - readable and not overly technical so you get lost 

These were presented at the European AES Convention in 2011 and the second at the UK Conference in 2011.

They list all the microphones and accessories available for AES42 and go into the pros and cons.

If anyone sends me a PM and includes an e-mail address I will be happy to send them the PDFs of these papers.

I did try to attach them to the post, but they are a bit larger than the 512KB limit (one is just over 1MB, the other just under)

Edited by BSkalinder:  Thanks to John for sending his AES papers to me via email.  I've posted them in the TS reference section for easy access by all:

http://www.taperssection.com/reference/pdf/AES%20-%20Digital%20Microphones%20-%20AES42%20and%20all%20that.pdf
http://www.taperssection.com/reference/pdf/AES%20130%20-%20Digital%20Microphones%20-%20What%27s%20it%20all%20about.pdf

[dream]

Another advantage of Mode-2 is that there is a constant phase relationship (close to 0°) between different microphones independent of cable length or other influences.

Also - Mode-2 mics can also be run as Mode-1; so if Shcoeps make the new ones as Mode-2 they can do both.

It would actually also help Schoeps sales for people wanting to mix Schoeps, Neumann and Sennheiser into an existing Mode-2 set-up. At the moment they would stick to Neumann and Sennheiser and ignore the Schoeps.

I do wish everyone would standardise on Mode-2!!!

Thank you John, good additions. As I mentioned, I got a note from Schoeps/Mr.Wittek Mode 2 will come in the future but demand for Mode 2 is very low. So we have to raise the voice.
Of course the next step would be a compact recording device with AES42 inputs, remote control build in (RCS functionality) and Mode 2.
BTW.: asked DPA about digital microphone bodies some time ago - negative answer, no interest.

[John Willett]

Another advantage of Mode-2 is that there is a constant phase relationship (close to 0°) between different microphones independent of cable length or other influences.

Also - Mode-2 mics can also be run as Mode-1; so if Shcoeps make the new ones as Mode-2 they can do both.

It would actually also help Schoeps sales for people wanting to mix Schoeps, Neumann and Sennheiser into an existing Mode-2 set-up. At the moment they would stick to Neumann and Sennheiser and ignore the Schoeps.

I do wish everyone would standardise on Mode-2!!!

Thank you John, good additions. As I mentioned, I got a note from Schoeps/Mr.Wittek Mode 2 will come in the future but demand for Mode 2 is very low. So we have to raise the voice.
Of course the next step would be a compact recording device with AES42 inputs, remote control build in (RCS functionality) and Mode 2.
BTW.: asked DPA about digital microphone bodies some time ago - negative answer, no interest.

The two recorders that can accept AES42 direct are the SD 788T and the AETA 4MinX.  Both are Mode-1 only as they include a SRC and this method will accept both Mode-1 and Mode-2 mics.

I guess they will only incorporate Mode-2 in the recorder if Schoeps also go Mode-2 as that will be all the main manufacturers on Mode-2.  But it will cost to include Mode-2 as it's a lot more complicated.

Otherwise you will need an interface - the Neumann DMI-2P is the only DC powered one.

I did speak to DPA when I wrote my papers, which is why I mentioned them in the papers.  They then said they had no plans but I tried to stir them up a bit - especially as the new series is modular, it would mean only a single module to have a complete series.

Gefell only do the one measurement AES42 module at the moment, unfortunately.  I'm working on them...

[dream]

The two recorders that can accept AES42 direct are the SD 788T and the AETA 4MinX.  Both are Mode-1 only as they include a SRC and this method will accept both Mode-1 and Mode-2 mics.

I guess they will only incorporate Mode-2 in the recorder if Schoeps also go Mode-2 as that will be all the main manufacturers on Mode-2.  But it will cost to include Mode-2 as it's a lot more complicated.

Otherwise you will need an interface - the Neumann DMI-2P is the only DC powered one.

Hi John,

I know all this and own several DMI-2s, including two DMI-2Ps. Behind this pseudonym is the guy who asked you the last time a few things about the MZD8000 ... ;-)
Anyway ... thats one of the reasons I try to motivate Schoeps to make a Mode 2 mic. I don't want recorders with always switched on SRCs. And I like the MK2 and MK41 so much ...

I did speak to DPA when I wrote my papers, which is why I mentioned them in the papers.  They then said they had no plans but I tried to stir them up a bit - especially as the new series is modular, it would mean only a single module to have a complete series.

Gefell only do the one measurement AES42 module at the moment, unfortunately.  I'm working on them...

I guess the main problem is that DPA and Gefell don't have the development capacities for hard- and software development. Furthermore especially DPA doesn't seem to care about digital microphones at all.

[John Willett]

The two recorders that can accept AES42 direct are the SD 788T and the AETA 4MinX.  Both are Mode-1 only as they include a SRC and this method will accept both Mode-1 and Mode-2 mics.

I guess they will only incorporate Mode-2 in the recorder if Schoeps also go Mode-2 as that will be all the main manufacturers on Mode-2.  But it will cost to include Mode-2 as it's a lot more complicated.

Otherwise you will need an interface - the Neumann DMI-2P is the only DC powered one.

Hi John,

I know all this and own several DMI-2s, including two DMI-2Ps. Behind this pseudonym is the guy who asked you the last time a few things about the MZD8000 ... ;-)
Anyway ... thats one of the reasons I try to motivate Schoeps to make a Mode 2 mic. I don't want recorders with always switched on SRCs. And I like the MK2 and MK41 so much ...

Yes - I agree with all this and do hope that Schoeps will also do Mode-2 as it's really the best way.

I did speak to DPA when I wrote my papers, which is why I mentioned them in the papers.  They then said they had no plans but I tried to stir them up a bit - especially as the new series is modular, it would mean only a single module to have a complete series.

Gefell only do the one measurement AES42 module at the moment, unfortunately.  I'm working on them...

I guess the main problem is that DPA and Gefell don't have the development capacities for hard- and software development. Furthermore especially DPA doesn't seem to care about digital microphones at all.

I think DPA are keeping an eye on it and, no doubt, will jump in if AES42 takes off more.

As Gefell is the original Neumann factory and still have good relations with Neumann, my personal hope is that they may persuade Neumann to let them have the KM-D innards as an OEM unit so they could make the SMS 2000 system digital.

Nothing official, just my dream; but I think it would be in Neumann's interest as well - as another manufacturer with Mode-2 digital mics will only enhance digital microphones as a whole to the benefit of all microphone manufacturers.